Pages

Saturday, September 25, 2010

What abortion advocates really think of the woman "exercising choice"

Warning: this post contains profanity and some other things that the easily disturbed probably shouldn't read.

If you aren't familiar with Lamebook, it's a repository of stupid, amusing, and lame Facebook posts. (If you aren't familiar with Facebook, we have a problem.) On Thursday, Lamebook featured a series of semi-coherent posts by "Kasey," who was facing an unplanned pregnancy. It ends with her deciding, on the advice of her so-called friends, to get an abortion: "THIS BABY DEAD." This original post is likely fake; it's the Lamebook comments section that really caught my attention.

The comments section did contain a few pro-lifers expressing their sadness that someone would be so callous toward an innocent child in the womb. But it also contained some extremely disturbing comments wishing harm upon Kasey. And, overwhelmingly, those comments came from self-proclaimed supporters of the "right to choose." Some examples, with the original spelling (and profanity) preserved:
I’m pro-choice all the way, but if I heard tomarrow Kasey had exsanguinated during her procedure, I’d be a happy woman.

Kasey, I hope you DIAF but I’m glad you are getting an abortion. But, do your best to DIAF as soon as you are done.
[Note: DIAF stands for "die in a fire."]
I’m pro-choice, all the way. But girls like this make me sick. Is it so hard to get on the pill you dumb, drunken whore? Instead she uses abortion as a form of birth control. And honestly, the kid is better off being aborted, since she has been drinking like crazy so far. What a pig. I wouldn’t feel one ounce of empathy for her if she died during that abortion. She’s a waste of space.

I’m also pro-choice, but this fucking disgusts me. This bitch should have been aborted instead, fucking self-centered slut. These type of people need to be shot in the face with a shot gun, then their bodies fed to pigs. At least that way they’ll be useful.

Dear Casey – it is idiots like you who make the the prolife crowd seem reasonalbe. I mean seriously, you are much too stupid to understand the gravity of your actions, laughing at having an abortion…seriously? I am not going to say I hope the knife slips, however I do hope you grow the hell up and and feel the pain and loss associated with your decision.

34 comments:

Suzanne said...

To be fair, you get pro-lifes who say stuff like "that whore should be sterilized".

It sounds like the "pro-choice" side isn't really on board with the pro-choice ideology. A real feminist would have said only supportive things.

Monica said...

I don't think you should go to comments on internet forums for the representation of pro-choice viewpoints or *any* viewpoints. I've never heard about Lamebook but it sounds like the worst culmination of this phenomenon. I mean, if I ever start to feel like I can't understand how my political opponents see my view, I just go to a conservative website and read the comments section, and see how dumb the people on my side can be. Do you know what I mean?

secularprolife.org said...

I'm not saying that pro-lifers are perfect. There are a couple of mean pro-life comments, and a couple where you can't tell if the person is pro-life or pro-abortion. But as I said, the overwhelming majority of the comments were from pro-choicers, and they also tended to be more violent (i.e. hoping she dies rather than hoping she's sterilized.)

darkcougar555 said...

Lol, that doesn't surprise me at all. I got some nasty or death wish responses from pro-choicers before, especially "well, I hope u will b r4p3d!!1!" comments. Pft.

So yes, I notice pro-lifers seem they tend to praise someone than to insult someone. Hmm...

Yonmei said...

Trying to claim that nasty comments left on "Lamebook" prove anything about any group of people is a silliness I wouldn't expect from any adult person.

I demonstrate the misogyny of pro-lifers by pointing out that you advocate for forced pregnancy and mass deaths through denial of safe legal abortion: that you say it's "wonderful" to take a newborn baby from the mother: that you argue even for serving soldiers to be forced to go offbase for abortion - denying healthcare to a serving soldier in a pro-life country means she has to return to the US for an abortion, proving that your hatred of women trumps even respect for military service.

I don't bother to traipse through lamebrain sites like "Lamebook" to find hateful prolife commentry when I can find it on any pro-life blog.

secularprolife.org said...

You read pro-life blogs with a filter, and it shows. For instance, I have never once said that "it's 'wonderful' to take a newborn baby from the mother." There are, tragically, cases where newborns must be taken from their mothers for reasons of safety, such as when a mom is addicted to cocaine. But I would never call that wonderful.

Yonmei said...

For instance, I have never once said that "it's 'wonderful' to take a newborn baby from the mother."

Matthew Newman, one of your front-page posters, said that it was a "wonderful option" to take a newborn baby from their mother. If you disagree with him, you didn't say so at the time.

RiverKnyle said...

Yonmei, it's hilarious how you pretend to take the higher vantage point, woefully ignorant of your own bias and misconceptions, and then laugh at what you see as bias and misconceptions of others. The pro-life movement isn't about oppressing the opposite sex (If it was, then I can't imagine how many of the original feminists were really secretly plotting to discriminate against their own kind); to boil it down to such is childish and, quite frankly, insulting.

It's a weighing, as stand, of the mother's right to privacy (Roe v Wade) versus what we view as the prenate's right to life. So keep your posts on topic, please. You make yourself look like a fool when you don't.

Yonmei said...

The pro-life movement isn't about oppressing the opposite sex

The pro-life movement is about dehumanising women.

It's a weighing, as stand, of the mother's right to privacy (Roe v Wade) versus what we view as the prenate's right to life.

The pro-life movement is about forcing women have babies against their will. Or trying to, since the only thing that the pro-life movement can actually achieve is denying women access to contraception, safe legal abortion, and other reproductive healthcare.

If pro-lifers were concerned about the health and wellbeing of unborn children, their focus would not be on denying women healthcare, but on providing women with healthcare - unstinted, not dependent on the woman consenting to the loss of her baby at birth.

If pro-lifers were passionately concerned about preventing abortion, they wouldn't waste their time trying to make women feel bad about choosing abortion, and they certainly wouldn't bother working to ensure that women have to access illegal abortion providers. They'd support organisations like Planned Parenthood, who do the practical effective work in preventing abortions...

(If it was, then I can't imagine how many of the original feminists were really secretly plotting to discriminate against their own kind)

Where abortion was illegal and unsafe, early feminists worked against men who thought they had the right to dispose of women's bodies as they wished. Those men are the ideological founders of the pro-life movement, and present-day feminists are still working against them.

Knyle said...

The pro-life movement is about dehumanising women.

How so? Simply because it goes against women? Or do you have proof of our intent? Other than, of course, the simple crowd-mentality on which you've seemed to base your beliefs?

The pro-life movement is about forcing women have babies against their will. Or trying to, since the only thing that the pro-life movement can actually achieve is denying women access to contraception, safe legal abortion, and other reproductive healthcare.,

The first part is as stated, wrong. I cannot, however, argue it without you providing me some sort of reason as to why you believe this.

I myself support access to contraception, I don't know what pro-lifer you have been talking too. And while abortion may be legal currently, I would like to point out that it is anything but safe (especially in the case of the child, per my beliefs), and that we are arguing as to whether or not it should be legal. Dragging the fact that it is currently legal into this debate is irrelevant, as the state of legality has little to nothing to do with it's morality.

Mind specifying what other reproductive healthcare we deny? I'm both curious as to what radicals you bring forth (probably religious), and slightly suspicious that you may have tagged that on there for effect.

If pro-lifers were concerned about the health and wellbeing of unborn children, their focus would not be on denying women healthcare, but on providing women with healthcare - unstinted, not dependent on the woman consenting to the loss of her baby at birth.

Again, what healthcare are we denying? Abortion? I fail to see how this helps either candidate.

If pro-lifers were passionately concerned about preventing abortion, they wouldn't waste their time trying to make women feel bad about choosing abortion, and they certainly wouldn't bother working to ensure that women have to access illegal abortion providers. They'd support organisations like Planned Parenthood, who do the practical effective work in preventing abortions...

Unfortunately, as I read your comments, I believe that making women feel bad may just be the right thing to do.

I've never partaken in this harassment myself, but judging by the fact that you swept my assertion of this being a gender-neutral issue to the side without so much as a bit of hesitation, it becomes clear that you're not interested in debating. An emotionally charged argument or picture would probably strike you harder than my assertion and arguments towards granting the prenate basic human rights.


Where abortion was illegal and unsafe, early feminists worked against men who thought they had the right to dispose of women's bodies as they wished. Those men are the ideological founders of the pro-life movement, and present-day feminists are still working against them.

Even though I find that hard to believe, seeing as Mary Wollstonecraft wrote in "A Vindication of the Rights of Women," that she condemned abortion. As did Susan B. Anthony, who described it as "child murder," "infanticide" and "foeticide."

In fact...

"Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who in 1848 organized the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York, classified abortion as a form of infanticide and said, 'When you consider that women have been treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.' "

And even if that were true, what about these modern feminists, then?

Knyle said...

Also, Yonmei, an aside...

What do you think of Provider's Conscience?

RiverKnyle said...

Weird. My comment was either deleted or didn't go through. Let's try again!

The pro-life movement is about dehumanising women.

How so? Simply because it goes against women? Or do you have proof of our intent? Other than, of course, the simple crowd-mentality on which you've seemed to base your beliefs?

The pro-life movement is about forcing women have babies against their will. Or trying to, since the only thing that the pro-life movement can actually achieve is denying women access to contraception, safe legal abortion, and other reproductive healthcare.

The first part is as stated, wrong. I cannot, however, argue it without you providing me some sort of reason as to why you believe this.

I myself support access to contraception, I don't know what pro-lifer you have been talking too. And while abortion may be legal currently, I would like to point out that it is anything but safe (especially in the case of the child, per my beliefs), and that we are arguing as to whether or not it should be legal. Dragging the fact that it is currently legal into this debate is irrelevant, as the state of legality has little to nothing to do with it's morality.

Mind specifying what other reproductive healthcare we deny? I'm both curious as to what radicals you bring forth (probably religious), and slightly suspicious that you may have tagged that on there for effect.

If pro-lifers were concerned about the health and wellbeing of unborn children, their focus would not be on denying women healthcare, but on providing women with healthcare - unstinted, not dependent on the woman consenting to the loss of her baby at birth.

Again, what healthcare do we deny? Abortion? I hardly think that's necessary, or hepful to the woman. Nobody claimed the mother had to give up the child, either. Where are you getting this?

If pro-lifers were passionately concerned about preventing abortion, they wouldn't waste their time trying to make women feel bad about choosing abortion, and they certainly wouldn't bother working to ensure that women have to access illegal abortion providers.

Honestly, as I read further and further into your comments, the more I think I see why people try to make women feel bad, now. Judging by the way you swept aside my assertions as to what we thought was the heart of the issue without so much as a second thought, I'm beginning to feel an emotionally charged argument or picture would be the only way to get to you.

That said, I'm fairly sure pro-lifers believe most abortion should be illegal, and, therefore, that last bit is irrelevant. Again.

They'd support organisations like Planned Parenthood, who do the practical effective work in preventing abortions...

… Since when?

Where abortion was illegal and unsafe, early feminists worked against men who thought they had the right to dispose of women's bodies as they wished. Those men are the ideological founders of the pro-life movement, and present-day feminists are still working against them.

Simply not true. Such famous feminists as Mary Wollstonecraft and Susan B. Anthony both condemned abortion. Hell...

“Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who in 1848 organized the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York, classified abortion as a form of infanticide and said, 'When you consider that women have been treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.' “

Even if that were true, what about modern feminists, then?

RiverKnyle said...

Looks like I have to divvy this up.

The pro-life movement is about dehumanising women.

How so? Simply because it goes against women? Or do you have proof of our intent? Other than, of course, the simple crowd-mentality on which you've seemed to base your beliefs?

The pro-life movement is about forcing women have babies against their will. Or trying to, since the only thing that the pro-life movement can actually achieve is denying women access to contraception, safe legal abortion, and other reproductive healthcare.

The first part is as stated, wrong. I cannot, however, argue it without you providing me some sort of reason as to why you believe this.

I myself support access to contraception, I don't know what pro-lifer you have been talking too. And while abortion may be legal currently, I would like to point out that it is anything but safe (especially in the case of the child, per my beliefs), and that we are arguing as to whether or not it should be legal. Dragging the fact that it is currently legal into this debate is irrelevant, as the state of legality has little to nothing to do with it's morality.

Mind specifying what other reproductive healthcare we deny? I'm both curious as to what radicals you bring forth (probably religious), and slightly suspicious that you may have tagged that on there for effect.

If pro-lifers were concerned about the health and wellbeing of unborn children, their focus would not be on denying women healthcare, but on providing women with healthcare - unstinted, not dependent on the woman consenting to the loss of her baby at birth.

Again, what healthcare do we deny? Abortion? I hardly think that's necessary, or hepful to the woman. Nobody claimed the mother had to give up the child, either. Where are you getting this?

RiverKnyle said...

If pro-lifers were passionately concerned about preventing abortion, they wouldn't waste their time trying to make women feel bad about choosing abortion, and they certainly wouldn't bother working to ensure that women have to access illegal abortion providers.

Honestly, as I read further and further into your comments, the more I think I see why people try to make women feel bad, now. Judging by the way you swept aside my assertions as to what we thought was the heart of the issue without so much as a second thought, I'm beginning to feel an emotionally charged argument or picture would be the only way to get to you.

That said, I'm fairly sure pro-lifers believe most abortion should be illegal, and, therefore, that last bit is irrelevant. Again.

They'd support organisations like Planned Parenthood, who do the practical effective work in preventing abortions...

… Since when?

Where abortion was illegal and unsafe, early feminists worked against men who thought they had the right to dispose of women's bodies as they wished. Those men are the ideological founders of the pro-life movement, and present-day feminists are still working against them.

Simply not true. Such famous feminists as Mary Wollstonecraft and Susan B. Anthony both condemned abortion. Hell...

“Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who in 1848 organized the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York, classified abortion as a form of infanticide and said, 'When you consider that women have been treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.' “

Even if that were true, what about modern feminists, then?

secularprolife.org said...

Yonmei, are you actually talking about adoption? Adoption CAN be wonderful, in the right circumstances. But absent safety concerns, no mother should be forced to give up a baby for adoption. I am certain that Matthew Newman agrees.

Yonmei said...

Yonmei, are you actually talking about adoption?

What did you think I was talking about? You couldn't possibly be unaware that the "wonderful option" of adoption that pro-lifers tout entails taking a newborn baby from the mother?

Adoption CAN be wonderful, in the right circumstances.

Sure. There are literally thousands of children in the US who are in need of parents - far more children with wounded backgrounds that parents willing to adopt them. That's wonderful.

But the "wonderful option" that Matthew was touting is the removal of a baby from the mother who just gave birth.

And the crisis pregnancy centres you tout exist primarily to coerce low-income women into being forced to provide babies for adoption.

I am certain that Matthew Newman agrees.

Then why exactly do you think he was calling this "wonderful"?

Yonmei said...

River: How so? Simply because it goes against women?

Well, look at the dialogue I just had with SP. She admitted she thinks taking a newborn baby from the mother is insupportable. But it appears never to have occurred to her that this is exactly what the "adoption is an alternative to abortion" is - neither she nor Matthew nor DarkCougar in another dialogue appear ever to have thought of adoption in terms of the woman who just lost her baby: they dehumanise her in their minds to a nothing, an object without feelings.

I'm beginning to feel an emotionally charged argument or picture would be the only way to get to you.

While emotionally charged arguments and pictures about the suffering caused by pro-lifers do nothing for you, because - another example of how pro-lifers dehumanise women - that women suffer is immaterial to you.

That said, I'm fairly sure pro-lifers believe most abortion should be illegal

Yes, we agree there. I think that's the definition of a pro-lifer: someone who thinks that if possible women should be forced by the state to have babies against their will, or die or be permanently damaged if a pregnancy goes wrong - and who is indifferent to how many women suffer and die because they must resort to illegal abortions as pro-lifers have denied them access to safe legal abortion. That is: pro-life entails dehumanisation and objectification of women.

… Since when?

Since its inception. Planned Parenthood provides contraception and sex education in the poorest neighbourhoods of the US. Planned Parenthood prevent far more abortions each year than any pro-life organisation ever has or ever will.

Such famous feminists as Mary Wollstonecraft and Susan B. Anthony both condemned abortion.

Of course. In their day, abortion was frequntly lethal to women, no matter how carefully performed. They both spoke out, strongly, against men who, like today's pro-lifers, regarded women's bodies as there for their use and disposal regardless of what damage this did to women. Modern feminists do the same, against the same kind of men.

Yonmei said...

River: I myself support access to contraception, I don't know what pro-lifer you have been talking too.

I suppose you could just have missed the frequent pro-life arguments that women mustn't be allowed emergency contraception to prevent abortion, or be allowed access to the Pill, because somehow preventing ovulation (and thus conception) is exactly the same as having an abortion. You'll find Nulano, a regular commenter, arguing against women having access to contraception in earlier dialogues on this blog.

And you could just have missed the likewise-frequent pro-life arguments that if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she should just "be abstinent", or that encouraging a "culture of contraception" somehow encourages more abortions. They exist though.

Again, what healthcare do we deny? Abortion? I hardly think that's necessary, or hepful to the woman.

Well, that's why you're pro-life, isn't it? You think your views on abortion ought to rule over what any individual pregnant woman thinks is necessary or helpful for her. You deny her humanity, her right to decide for herself.

Nobody claimed the mother had to give up the child, either. Where are you getting this?

From pro-lifers like Matthew Newman who think taking a newborn baby from the mother is "wonderful". From closet pro-choicers who identify publicly as pro-lifers, like DarkCougar, who don't appear to understand in the least that it is devastating to a woman to lose the baby she has just given birth to. From pro-lifers like SP herself, who doesn't even think of the woman who just gave birth in association with infant adoption.

Yonmei said...

Even if that were true, what about modern feminists, then?

DarkCougar calls herself pro-life while fully supporting pro-choice principles, and denies she's a feminist while asserting she supports equality - the basis of feminism.

In mirror image, "Feminists for Life" call themselves feminists while supporting forcing women through pregnancy against their will, and denying basic human rights to women. Plainly, whatever name they use on their website, they are not feminists.

Yonmei said...

There's another comment to River that's got lost to the spam queue....

Yonmei said...

What do you think of Provider's Conscience?

If you mean by that the pro-abortion position taken by some pharmacists and even doctors, that they should promote abortion by denying contraception to women, I disrespect it as much as I do all the insanely contradictory pro-life positions - especially those that tend to promote abortion rather than prevent it.

RiverKnyle said...

Err, no. I meant the laws that stated a Doctor could not be forced to provide treatment they find unethical. i.e. Abortions if they believe they are killing someone.

RiverKnyle said...

Well, look at the dialogue I just had with SP. She admitted she thinks taking a newborn baby from the mother is insupportable. But it appears never to have occurred to her that this is exactly what the "adoption is an alternative to abortion" is - neither she nor Matthew nor DarkCougar in another dialogue appear ever to have thought of adoption in terms of the woman who just lost her baby: they dehumanise her in their minds to a nothing, an object without feelings.

I believe there point to take away, there, is that opting to give the child up for adoption is a wonderful alternative to killing the child. In the former case, the mother may regret losing her child, but in the latter, the mother may both regret losing the child and the child has been killed. I'm not saying the mother is unfeeling, but it's a choice between the lesser of two evils.

While emotionally charged arguments and pictures about the suffering caused by pro-lifers do nothing for you, because - another example of how pro-lifers dehumanise women - that women suffer is immaterial to you.

I'm not saying they'd be ineffective, I was implying a logically-based argument would not phase you as much as an emotional one, based upon your method of quick and quite instant denial of my claim. The point wasn't that I feel nothing for the woman (I do, for both parties), but rather that this argument should consist of logical arguments, and not just mud-slinging.

Yes, we agree there. I think that's the definition of a pro-lifer: someone who thinks that if possible women should be forced by the state to have babies against their will, or die or be permanently damaged if a pregnancy goes wrong - and who is indifferent to how many women suffer and die because they must resort to illegal abortions as pro-lifers have denied them access to safe legal abortion. That is: pro-life entails dehumanisation and objectification of women.

Again, misrepresenting your opponents, purposely, no less, makes you look, and forgive me for saying it, like a pompous fool. It's not a matter of being forced, it's a matter of taking a chance using the freedom one has been given, and accepting the responsibility of one's own actions. If I were to sign a contract that promised a brand-new car, and there was a clause that stated I may, or may not, have to work for that company for nine months (For the sake of argument, this is non-negotiable), it is nobody's fault but my own, and legally I should follow through should I be called upon by this company. It was my freedom to choose to do so, and I did.

RiverKnyle said...

Yes, we agree there. I think that's the definition of a pro-lifer: someone who thinks that if possible women should be forced by the state to have babies against their will, or die or be permanently damaged if a pregnancy goes wrong - and who is indifferent to how many women suffer and die because they must resort to illegal abortions as pro-lifers have denied them access to safe legal abortion. That is: pro-life entails dehumanisation and objectification of women.

Again, misrepresenting your opponents, purposely, no less, makes you look, and forgive me for saying it, like a pompous fool. It's not a matter of being forced, it's a matter of taking a chance using the freedom one has been given, and accepting the responsibility of one's own actions. If I were to sign a contract that promised a brand-new car, and there was a clause that stated I may, or may not, have to work for that company for nine months (For the sake of argument, this is non-negotiable), it is nobody's fault but my own, and legally I should follow through should I be called upon by this company. It was my freedom to choose to do so, and I did.

Since its inception. Planned Parenthood provides contraception and sex education in the poorest neighbourhoods of the US. Planned Parenthood prevent far more abortions each year than any pro-life organisation ever has or ever will.

Again, contraception. I support this, and in fact encourage it. The last bit, however, I'll have to ask for statistics to verify your claims.

Of course. In their day, abortion was frequntly lethal to women, no matter how carefully performed. They both spoke out, strongly, against men who, like today's pro-lifers, regarded women's bodies as there for their use and disposal regardless of what damage this did to women. Modern feminists do the same, against the same kind of men.

I'll acknowledge that abortion was frequently lethal, but even so they made no mention of “a woman's right to have an abortion” while, at the same time, heavily condemning abortions. Regardless, you didn't acknowledge that many key feminists continued to share this view as history moved along, and completely ignored that quote, and filled it with more straw man arguments. I will, again, ask you to refrain from doing this, if just for the sake of argument.

RiverKnyle said...

DarkCougar calls herself pro-life while fully supporting pro-choice principles, and denies she's a feminist while asserting she supports equality - the basis of feminism.

In mirror image, "Feminists for Life" call themselves feminists while supporting forcing women through pregnancy against their will, and denying basic human rights to women. Plainly, whatever name they use on their website, they are not feminists.


Again, you are attacking the consequences of beliefs and not the premise or logic behind them. Even so, DarkCougar does not represent all of the pro-life feminists, whether or not she is one. Equality is something we can all understand, and appreciate, one does not need to be a Feminist to assume this belief. I'm a humanist, myself.

RiverKnyle said...

Agh! I forgot to edit that last paragraph, so here's an addendum.

Your criticism of feminists for life while women aren't benefiting from it, is contradictory, and again, only attacking the consequences of this belief. They believe in equality (which you cited as the basis of feminism) and, as such, believe that prenatal life (read: children), should be given equal priority.

Again, for attacking the consequences, I could compare what you did to what the Church did about Nostradamus when he made his scientific model of the universe. While it upset a lot of people, he was right. Even if he had made it specifically to piss off or oppress the church, he still would have been right.

Yonmei said...

RiverKnyle said: Err, no. I meant the laws that stated a Doctor could not be forced to provide treatment they find unethical. i.e. Abortions if they believe they are killing someone.

I think that a doctor or a nurse who thinks women shouldn't have legal abortions should go into a line of medical work where they are unlikely to be asked to provide one except in a medical emergency. If they won't provide an abortion to a woman in a medical emergency, they ought not to be in healthcare.

What do you think of the pro-abortion pharmacists, widely-supported by the pro-life movement, who deny women contraception? That's the commonest use of "provider's choice".

Yonmei said...

RiverKnyle: I believe there point to take away, there, is that opting to give the child up for adoption is a wonderful alternative to killing the child.

Certainly if the baby is at risk of infanticide. But you're just using the pro-life inflammatory rhetoric, used to justify murder and terrorist acts, claiming that a woman who has an abortion is "killing the child". She's not: nor is the doctor.

In the former case, the mother may regret losing her child, but in the latter, the mother may both regret losing the child and the child has been killed.

Setting aside the individual personal feelings all women will have about the decision to have an abortion or to have the baby, biologically speaking, humans "get over" an early abortion/spontaneous miscarriage in a natural and easy way. I don't mean that mentally - I mean literally the physical reactions to pregnancy. So many pregnancies end in early miscarriage, spontaneous or induced, and hormonally, biologically, early pregnancy is the point at which the body rapidly recovers. Pro-lifers had to invent a "syndrome" which has no medical basis in order to justify claiming that abortion harms women, when early abortion patently doesn't.

Removal of a newborn baby from the mother is biologically devastating. Infant adoption harms women.

Obviously, as I am pro-choice, I support a woman's right to choose at every stage - whether to terminate or continue. But biologically, scientifically, she will suffer less physical harm, be less devastated, by choosing an early abortion than infant adoption. Infant abortion is brutal to the woman who loses her baby.

I'm not saying the mother is unfeeling, but it's a choice between the lesser of two evils.

How so? Once the baby is born, the baby should stay with the mother. If pro-lifers had any real concern for mother and baby, rather than touting separation of mother and baby and ignoring the devastation done to the mother as a direct result, they'd be promoting everything in their power to ensure that low-income single women had child-friendly housing, paid maternity leave day care, welfare, free healthcare for mother and baby - everything possible to ensure that the mother could keep her baby, mot lose the baby.

Yonmei said...

but rather that this argument should consist of logical arguments, and not just mud-slinging.

Creepy, coming from someone who just used the blood-soaked mud-slinging phrase "killing a child". Claiming that abortion "kills babies" is emotional mud-slinging, and pro-lifers use it routinely.

If you want to stick to logic, stick to it. An abortion removes an embryo or a fetus from a woman's uterus: in well over 90% of abortions worldwide, the abortion occurs in the first trimester. There is no baby. There is no child.

If you use that bloody mud to fling at pro-choicers and women who have abortions and doctors who provide them, why act all surprised when you get a lesser, but stil emotional, reaction?

Yonmei said...

If I were to sign a contract that promised a brand-new car, and there was a clause that stated I may, or may not, have to work for that company for nine months (For the sake of argument, this is non-negotiable), it is nobody's fault but my own, and legally I should follow through should I be called upon by this company. It was my freedom to choose to do so, and I did.

It's interesting that you choose to use the analogy of forced labour for pregnancy.

Okay. You go out and you see a nice car for sale, and you ask to have a trial run, and the company says sure. You like the car but you decide, no, you can't afford to buy it. Salesguy says sure you can: you just work for the company unpaid for 9 months and the car's yours! You say "But if I take 9 months unpaid work, I won't be able to run the car at the end of it - cars are expensive!" Salesguy says "Don't worry, we have a wonderful option! You work for the company unpaid for nine months and you get the car, and then you can give the car to a better-off couple who want it! They can afford to run a car and they'll take better care of it than you!"

You say "Sod that for a job, I'm getting out!" and salesguy produces legislation, passed by the government, enforced by prosecution, that says that by taking the joyride in the car, you can now be compelled to work for the company unpaid for nine months, at the end of which time you will be given this nice car.

Salesguy repeats the point that as you will be unable to run the nice car or treat it well, there are plenty of beter-off couples who will be happy to take the car from you when you're given it.

You think that's "nobody's fault but your own" and the option to give up the car to someone else is the lesser of two evils...?

Yonmei said...

Further, we are not even talking about "nice cars for sale", or "joyrides". We're talking about having sex - a normal, natural human need.

Pro-lifers who argue that women who have sex have "signed a contract" to have a baby if they get pregnant, aren't dehumanising women; They're arguing for enslavement of women, that forced labour is an acceptable punishment for women who choose to have sex for pleasure.

Your presumption that a woman having sex has "signed a contract" to have a baby, is just flat wrong.

Yonmei said...

RiverKnyle:
Your criticism of feminists for life while women aren't benefiting from it, is contradictory, and again, only attacking the consequences of this belief. They believe in equality (which you cited as the basis of feminism) and, as such, believe that prenatal life (read: children), should be given equal priority.


No one who argues for forced pregnancy and against safe legal abortion is arguing for equal treatment of embryos/fetuses. They're arguing that embryos/fetuses ought to be given superior rights over the pregnant woman herself - a foolish and selfcontradictory position if you actually care for "prenatal life", but perfectly explicable if, as you apparently do, you believe in pregnancy as a punishment for having sex.

Yonmei said...

RiverKnyle: Again, you are attacking the consequences of beliefs and not the premise or logic behind them

Hm, interesting.

You acknowledge, then, that the consequences of pro-life beliefs are forced pregnancy or illegal abortion, damage to women's health and women's lives, or the devastation of adoption.

You just think that it's "logical" to ignore the consequences, and argue only for the premise pro-lifers offer, that touting the value of "prenatal life" justifies their attacks on pregnant women.

It's as if you think of "the value of prenatal life" as a kind of independent moral value floating in mid-air, perfect and good in itself, and you mustn't be required to justify it by showing that this mid-air moral value has any good practical life-saving or health-saving consequences - since of course, it doesn't, rather the reverse.

Yonmei said...

In fact, it isn't even "the end justifies the means", in this way of pro-life thinking.

It's a "the means are ever so pure, so what do I care what the ends are".

Pontius Pilate knew when he washed his hands that the troublesome Jewish sage was going to be dragged off and crucified. But he thought because he was keeping himself pure, it didn't matter. Prolifers are Pontius Pilate, congratulating themselves on their purity while women are crucified for it.