Pages

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

I Am Equal Without Abortion

[Today's guest post by Roni Cairns is part of our paid blogging program. An earlier version of this piece appeared on her personal blog.]

Have you ever been told that a woman will lose all of her rights and become a second-class person, inferior, or subhuman if she cannot obtain a legal abortion? I have, numerous times. And lest you think that this is a fringe viewpoint: in her dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart, the partial-birth abortion case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that successful court challenges to pro-life laws vindicated women's right to "enjoy equal citizenship stature."

As a woman who has been pregnant, I take offense to the notion that I need a "right" to abortion, partial-birth or otherwise, to be an equal citizen. Preventing people from killing other humans does not make those who would otherwise kill another human "subhuman."

I, as a woman, am more than my uterus. When I was pregnant, I was not subhuman. I could still think, vote, pursue my goals, etc. And I know that pregnant women are more capable than those who deem pregnant women inferior give them credit for. Women are stronger than that. We do not need the "right" to kill in order to be successful.

I find it terribly sad that instead of helping us "inferior" pregnant women achieve success—in our careers, educational goals, etc.—those who say things like that would rather promote abortion. Instead of helping women graduate from college without ending a human life (which pro-life groups are actively working on), they propose that we kill our future generations and obtain our promotions and degrees by sacrificing our defenseless children.

How is it pro-woman to say that we must be allowed to kill our children in order to be successful, to be "equal citizens," to avoid being "inferior" or "subhuman"? That there is a human within my uterus does not make me less of a human, does not reduce me to such a state that I cannot accomplish anything, that I cannot think or vote, does not "ruin my life." Those who believe pregnant women are inferior do women a serious disservice.

As a woman, I neither need nor want the right to kill humans to be equal as a human being. I am a woman. I am strong. I am capable. I am not inferior. And I don't need the right to kill to be equal.

125 comments:

Crystal Kupper said...

Yes!

Drew Hymer said...

It is misogynist to say women need abortion to be equal to men. It assumes that women aren't equal to men already. It also holds male sexuality to be the standard against which women just don't measure up.

Ann said...

Awesome!
Powerful!
You Go Girl!

Tom said...

For those who purport to fight for women's rights, they show a startling lack of faith in women. To them, unless women have a "right" to an abortion, they are too weak, too stupid, too feeble, or too poor to carry a child. Who's the misogynistic one?

purrtriarchy said...

The same was said about the female vote. And contraception.

someone45 said...

How about you don't have an abortion but you stay out of my life and my private medical choices? You do not get to tell me how to live my life and I won't tell you how to live yours...

Coyote said...

Except when you will force people to pay child support, et cetera, right?

Drew Hymer said...

someone45, you seem to have no problem telling an unborn baby how to live her life -- that is DEAD. you like the use of lethal force

someone45 said...

The unborn child has no life so therefore I would not be telling it anything. Its "life" requires the willing use of the woman's body and forcing her to do that DOES make her inferior.

someone45 said...

I wouldn't be with a man who wanted kids and did not share my view on abortion so myself personally I would never force a man to pay child support.


I think all couples should have a nice quick 5 minute talk about what they would do if a pregnancy was to happen. Yes the woman could lie/chnage her mind but this would help in a lot of cases.


Not everyone may morally agree with abortion but they do not get to tell me how to live my life and they do not get to decide what is moral for my life.

Amanda McNabb said...

Life? Heartbeat or brain activity is how the law defines life, both of which a baby posses BEFORE most pregnancy tests show a positive. The question has not been about life, but one of personhood. Are the Jews really people? Are slaves? Are the elderly, those on life support, the unborn? If your sperm/egg is used to create an embryo which is implanted in a surrogate, who has the choice then?

When you break it all down, most of the arguments are really about housing the little one until s/he can breathe on his/her own, not about life or rights.

If I could beam the baby growing inside, out of the woman, and into a jar to finish gestation, could you morally justify dumping the contents of said jar down the garbage disposal?

someone45 said...

A pregnancy test can show positive as early as two weeks and there is no brain activity or heart beat then. Regardless it is still not your choice if a woman has an abortion. You do not get to control her life and her body.


A woman has a choice if she "houses the little one" forcing her to do it against her will DOES make her inferior no matter how you look at it.

purrtriarchy said...

Heartbeat or brain activity is how the law defines life, both of which a
baby posses BEFORE most pregnancy tests show a positive


Citation needed.

Are the Jews really people? Are slaves?

Are they mindless, non-sentient animal organisms? Are they single cell genetic blueprints?

When you break it all down, most of the arguments are really about
housing the little one until s/he can breathe on his/her own, not about
life or rights.


Then someone can use your body as life support until they are well enough to survive without use of your body?

If I could beam the baby growing inside, out of the woman, and into a
jar to finish gestation, could you morally justify dumping the contents
of said jar down the garbage disposal?



Still wouldn't be viable, even if gestated in a jar. One significant difference is that your embyro and/or patient on *mechanical* life support is not violating anyone's body in order to sustain their own life.

purrtriarchy said...

Remember, someone45, every zygote is 'inherently rational' the moment the sperm meets egg!

purrtriarchy said...

An unborn 'baby' doesn't have a life to lead. It's alive, but no life.

someone45 said...

Yeah... I sometimes wonder what the point is of talking to these people. They are never going to change how they view women.

Amanda McNabb said...

Viability is irrelevant to the argument, which was my original argument, thus the jar analogy.

purrtriarchy said...

Even in a jar, or a petri dish, it is still not viable. It will not be viable until it can survive on it's own as a complete, fully formed, autonomous individual. Until then it is mere potential - a genetic blueprint, and then a mindless human organism, that only has the potential to be a rational, thinking person.

Amanda McNabb said...

I am sorry I left off the citations.

22 days for heartbeat [1]

40 days brain waves [2]
Week 4 - 7 is when most women discover they are pregnant [3]

Yes there are tests that can detect pregnancy earlier, BUT an over the counter test is still going to be a few weeks out.


1. http://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/MedEd/GrossAnatomy/thorax0/heartdev/main_fra.html

2. JAMA Oct 12, 1964, p. 120

3. http://americanpregnancy.org/weekbyweek/week6.htm

JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120
Brain
function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be
reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six
weeks after conception - See more at:
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2006/10/brain_waves_at_.html#sthash.hQC6831n.dpuf
Brain
waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG).

H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120

Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be
reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six
weeks after conception.

J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain,"
New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564 - See more at:
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2006/10/brain_waves_at_.html#sthash.cT6ZaAf0.dpuf
Brain
waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG).

H. Hamlin, "Life or Death by EEG," JAMA, Oct. 12, 1964, p. 120

Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be
reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six
weeks after conception.

J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain,"
New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564 - See more at:
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2006/10/brain_waves_at_.html#sthash.cT6ZaAf0.dpuf

Amanda McNabb said...

Interesting concept. I will have to update the definition in my dictionary.

anon said...

Actually, a pregnancy test can be taken two weeks after ovulation, but the woman is considered 4 weeks along because we calculate gestation from the beginning of the last period and assume it would have been a 28 day cycle with ovulation occuring on day 14. If we ovulated earlier than day 14, then the gestational age actually ends up starting before the state of the previous cycle. Point is, for the first two weeks of "pregnancy" you're not pregnant, you haven't ovulated, and you probably haven't even had the sex that got you pregnant till the very end of that two week period. For the next two weeks, the fertilization occurs in the fallopean tube, the zygote becomes a blastocyst in movements and the blastocyst travels and gradually implants in the uterine wall. As such, when you find out you're pregnant, you always find out that you're 4 or 5 weeks along. And if you waited your period out, you can even be 6 or 7 weeks along.

myintx said...

No one is viewing women any differently... Read the article.

purrtriarchy said...

It's as alive as a guinea worm.

purrtriarchy said...

Primitive, meaningless brain function. Still non-sentient.

Susan in Saskatchewan said...

But we tell you not to smoke in certain places, not to drive drunk, not to use illegal drugs. Because these things cause harm to innocent bystanders. The time to decide against having a baby is before you get pregnant! Contraception is a lie. If you really cannot afford to get pregnant, than the only foolproof method to avoid pregnancy is abstinence. Not abstinence from men or having fun. Just abstinence from copulation. That leaves a lot of other fun activities open you know! ;) Once you are pregnant, you are a mother. And that comes with a responsibility. That is one of the reasons that rape is so awful, because it risks impregnating a woman against her will. It's certainly not the only reason rape is awful, but it is a big one.

Susan in Saskatchewan said...

But we as a society do need to set rules and standards for us all to live in peace. One of these rules is that parents must look after their children. Another is that causing the death of another human is not acceptable unless defending your own life. Pregnancy lasts all of 42 weeks at most. Pregnancy, the vast majority of the time, is not lethal in this country. What women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant and are not in a good situation to be mother need are options to become the mother they need to be or to find another home for the baby.

purrtriarchy said...

Rape is not lethal in the vast majority of cases. It is wrong to kill your rapist unless your life is threatened.

And since when are parents legally obligated to provide biological bodily support to their born children? As in blood, tissue and organ donation? (Which is what pregnancy essentially is. The prenate uses the woman's organs to survive).

purrtriarchy said...

So you expect people (women) to stay abstinent their entire lives? Laughable. Utterly unrealistic.

Would you permit a rape victim to abort?

And yes, parents do have responsibilities, but they do not include full bodily life support. A parent can't even be legally obligated to donate blood to a child to save that child's life.

Petr Svoboda said...

No, you are not you are giving up the authority over you own body. That's a important principle in medical ethics. Right to abort pregnancy is just a consequence of this principle. This argument works regardless whether you believe embryo is a person or not. Nobody can be forced to host other organism.

Jennifer Starr said...

Why is contraception a lie?

Susan in Saskatchewan said...

Because it promises the ability to have sex without consequences. The number one reason for abortion is failed contraception.

purrtriarchy said...

And what, pray tell, is so wrong about having sex without consequences?

Susan in Saskatchewan said...

I never said that I expect women to be abstinent their entire lives. Please don't put words in my mouth. I said that if you are in a position that you truly cannot afford to be pregnant for nine months then you need to avoid copulation. It is very possible to achieve org*sm without copulation you know. Are you saying that women aren't able to avoid copulation?


If a woman is raped I would be honest with her. First, I would offer her whatever comfort and practical help that I could. And then I would tell her that an abortion will not erase the fact that she was raped. But an abortion would end the life of a child who had nothing to do with the way s/he was conceived.


As for supplying bodily support, what is providing food and water then? Parents are not allowed to medically neglect their children. We are not allowed to starve our children to death. And we are not allowed to let a broken arm fester without treatment. The pro-life position is that a woman becomes a mother once she becomes pregnant. Nine months is not a death sentence or even a life sentence. Unlike what abortion is for the baby.

Guest said...

I thought you guys didn't like it when people refer to the pregnant woman as a host.

http://liveactionnews.org/pro-aborts-vilify-va-republican-for-taking-their-own-rhetoric-to-its-logical-conclusion/

Make up your minds!

Susan in Saskatchewan said...

Yes, it is wrong to kill your rapist who is actively harmed you. So why isn't it wrong to kill the innocent baby who had nothing to do with it?


Parents are legally obligated to feed and care for their child. We cannot let a child starve to death. We cannot let a child remain injured and not attend to the injury. How is this so different? If someone can come up with a way to care for my children that does not require money, work, loss of sleep, time spent with doctors, etc. please let me know! I am a mom. And the work of childcare has been harder after birth for every single one of my children. Pregnancy may have robbed me of sleep, but at least I wasn't carrying a screaming child while not sleeping for example.

Susan in Saskatchewan said...

I totally agree with you! It reminds me of a quote by G.K. Chesterton, "He always insists that a workman has no right to have so many children, or that a slum is perilous because it is producing so many children. The question he dreads is “Why has not the workman a better wage? Why has not the slum family a better house?” His way of escaping from it is to suggest, not a larger house but a smaller family. The landlord or the employer says in his hearty and handsome fashion: “You really cannot expect me to deprive myself of my money. But I will make a sacrifice, I will deprive myself of your children.”
~ excerpt from G.K. Chesterton’s essay, Social Reform versus Birth Control

Susan in Saskatchewan said...

Nothing but there is no such thing when a women is at the child-bearing part of her life. I'd love for coffee to have no consequences but, for me, a cup of coffee will give me heartburn from hell. If I want to avoid the heartburn, I avoid the coffee. I don't like this fact. I LOVE coffee. But I cannot have it. This is truth for what my body can handle at this time of my life. When I am past child-bearing years, sex without children is all I'll have. And, if all I'm concerned about is pregnancy, then sex will be consequence free. But, at this point in my life, it is not.

Petr Svoboda said...

I don't obviously have problem with that term.

someone45 said...

Forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term would not make it peaceful. You would be making an entire group of people inferior and miserable.


I NEVER want kids so nothing would make me change my ind and decide to become a mother...

someone45 said...

Yes they harm innocent bystanders. An unwanted pregnancy only involves the pregnant woman. The "baby" is not more important than her and forcing her to ruin her life for it is wrong.


I have a boyfriend so giving up sex for life is not an option and if I do get pregnant I will not be a mother. I would have an abortion.

someone45 said...

Right... women are the infeior incubators and men control them. That is how anti-choicers want it.

myintx said...

You still haven't read the article...

"We do not need the "right" to kill in order to be successful."

"That there is a human within my uterus does not make me less of a human, does not reduce me to such a state that I cannot accomplish anything, that I cannot think or vote, does not "ruin my life." Those who believe pregnant women are inferior do women a serious disservice."
You apparently must think you are inferior.... The author doesn't...I don't.... pro-life politicians don't...

William Cable said...

So adoption not even going to be considered then?

Susan in Saskatchewan said...

I never said that carrying an unwanted pregnancy would be peaceful. I've been pregnant several times. I hate being pregnant. It will be very hard, one of the hardest things that a person ever does. But it is temporary. Death is most definitely not.


I NEVER wanted children either. Until I met the man who is now my husband. I've lived long enough to know that people change, minds change and hearts change.

purrtriarchy said...

Why does the right to life of a rapist trump your right to not be raped?


How much torture should you be forced to endure before you can use lethal force to escape such torture?

purrtriarchy said...

WTF!?


You are pro-choice. Pro-lifers routinely say that anyone who is pro-choice spends all of their time fantasizing about killing babies born and unborn because they are psychopaths.


Ingrid Heimark made that very argument - that we are just looking for any reason at all to kill babies (because to be pro choice is to be Hitler. Stalin, Mao and Jeffrey Dahmer in one I guess)

Susan in Saskatchewan said...

I never said any such thing! NO ONE EVER HAS THE RIGHT TO RAPE ANYONE ELSE! EVER! The quote you just gave says nothing about justifiable rape. Rape is never justifiable!

People don't decide how they are conceived. Should they be punished for the crimes of their father?

According to you, the fetus is not human. I suggest you reread your biology textbooks from high school. Because if the fetus is not human than what is it? Babies born at 22 weeks gestation are now able to survive birth (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-437236/Born-just-22-weeks--Amilla-allowed-home.html). And what about those survivors of attempted abortions? What were they?

purrtriarchy said...

You said that you can't kill a rapist in self-defense. And that rape victims MUST bear their rapists offspring because they happen to have the misfortune to be born with a uterus.


A zef is human. But so is a tumour. And every cell in your body.

Susan in Saskatchewan said...

No one ever has the right to rape another person and I never said or hinted that.


The baby is not raping you. And an abortion doesn't take the rape away.


Frankly, most rapists would be much happier for any resulting baby to be aborted I would think.

purrtriarchy said...

No one ever has the right to rape another person and I never said or hinted that.

Yes you did.

Susan wrote:

""Yes, it is wrong to kill your rapist who is actively harmed you.""

In other words, you can't kill the rapist in self-defense, because his right to life trumps your right to escape the rape.

The baby is not raping you. And an abortion doesn't take the rape away.

If it is there using your body without your consent it is no different from rape, which is the use of your body without your consent.

And abortion DOES make the pregnancy go away, which is the entire point.

most rapists would be much happier for any resulting baby to be aborted I would think.


Nope. Rapists rape in wartime purposely to impregnate their victims and inflict a kind of genocide on the opposing population.


And rapists also rape as a form of coercion, to keep the woman with them. If she is barefoot and pregnant she can't leave, can she? There is an entire sexual fetish devoted to raping and impregnating women. Rapists also have parental rights in 31 US states, and they can and do sue for those parental rights.

Susan in Saskatchewan said...

No, I never said that you can't kill a rapist in self-defence. I said that babies who are the result of rape didn't do anything wrong, their father did. How is killing an innocent baby self-defence? You certainly aren't hurting your rapist by doing that.


I had to look up "zed" and I still don't understand what you are talking about with that term.


However, a fetus is not like any cell in your body. A fetus is a combination of the genetic material in your body and the genetic material that his/her father contributed and is thus a unique human individual. Just like you and I are. And that is why aborting a fetus is not the same as removing a tumour.

purrtriarchy said...

Yes, you did.

I had said: ""Rape is not lethal in the vast majority of cases. It is wrong to kill your rapist unless your life is threatened.""

And you replied:

""Yes, it is wrong to kill your rapist who is actively harmed you.""

Which means, you can't kill your rapist in self-defense, because even if they are harming you, it is not lethal.

How is killing an innocent baby self-defence?

Unwanted pregnancy is an intimate bodily violation. Pregnancy also maims, kills and injures women. In the millions. Abortion is self-defense.

ZEF = zygote, embryo fetus

A fetus is a combination of the genetic material in your body and the
genetic material that his/her father contributed and is thus a unique
human individual


So it would be totes acceptable in your world to flush a cloned zygote down the drain because it's genetic material isn't unique?

Susan in Saskatchewan said...

All right then, I guess you could argue that. But you can't argue a baby's raping you. The baby had nothing to do with its creation and is thus innocent!


And you are misguided to think that making the pregnancy go away will make the rape go away.


I'm Canadian so I don't know what the rules are for parental rights in the US. So I won't comment on that. People do awful things to each other all the time. Doesn't mean I have to. Doesn't mean you have to either.


But women can and do walk away from their babies all the time. Once the baby is born, she can cut off all contact if she chooses. The baby will live. And so will she.


I will never condone the death of innocent human beings because of the crimes of their parents.


Abortions would not help women in these cases. Hard prosecution and enforcement of anti-rape laws will. And so will real help for women in crises.

Susan in Saskatchewan said...

In the US and Canada, with the wide availability of affordable pre-natal care, the chances of being maimed or killed because of pregnancy is very low.

Abortion is not without its own risks. A simple google search will find women who have died from so-called "safe, legal abortions". And many women have lost their fertility because of previous abortions. There is also research showing a decline in mental health in many post-abortive women.



So now i know what you mean by ZEF. My argument still holds.


A cloned human person also has rights but why would a woman impregnated with a clone want to abort? After all the work it takes to do it?


You still haven't justified why it is OK to kill innocent human beings. But I need to bow out of this discussion now. I have made my case and if you choose to disregard it you are free to do so. You won't change my mind. And I can see that I won't change yours. At least not now. Hope you enjoy your weekend!

purrtriarchy said...

In the US and Canada, with the wide availability of affordable pre-natal
care, the chances of being maimed or killed because of pregnancy is
very low.


1.2 million women are permanently injured in the usa alone

30,000 nearly escape death

Another 800 per year (and it's rising) die from pregnancy.

Only the person taking the risks can make that decision. No one can choose for another how much risk should be taken on. Not your life and health, not your choice.

And abortion is 14x safer than pregnancy. All medical treatments have risks, but carrying a pregnancy to term is still more dangerous than abortion. Period.

A cloned human person also has rights but why would a woman impregnated with a clone want to abort

I thought you said that unique DNA = right to life?

A cloned human doesn't have unique DNA, therefore, no right to life, it's just another cell!

You still haven't justified why it is OK to kill innocent human beings.



Bodily autonomy. NO one has the right to use another persons' body without consent.

purrtriarchy said...

ut you can't argue a baby's raping you. The baby had nothing to do with its creation and is thus innocent!

It is not self aware. It is just as innocent as a cancerous tumour.

But women can and do walk away from their babies all the time

Yes, they can. Which is why we don't force people to be parents. In the case of pregnancy, the ONLY way for the woman to escape the violation is to evict the invader from her body. And yes, it's an invader if she doesn't want it there.

I will never condone the death of innocent human beings because of the crimes of their parents.

Yet you would torture an innocent rape victim instead. How charming.

Abortions would not help women in these cases.


Tell that to the rape victims who suffer severe psyhological torture from the rape pregnancies.

Susan in Saskatchewan said...

Then only the raped woman has a right to abortion according to you. Because in all other cases, a woman give that consent when she consents to sex. Simple biology at work there. She consents to the entrance of another person's DNA into herself, thus she consents to the creation of a new life. You can argue semantics all you want. I stand by what I've said and you won't change my mind. And I won't change yours. So I will bow out. Good day.

purrtriarchy said...

Consent is not a one time thing.


if you allow a penis to enter you, you have not conented to let it continue to enter you. You have the right to withdraw consent at any time. The same goes with pregnancy. A woman does not give up her bodily autonomy just because she has sex.

someone45 said...

Well some women would rather die than be pregnant and to force them to carry to term is wrong.


I WILL NEVER chnage my ind about not wanting kids and I have met the man I am going to spend the rest of my life with. We both still want a child free life.

someone45 said...

Why would it be? The problem is forcing the woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is what makes her inferior. Adoption does not take away the harm and misery the unwanted pregnancy is going to cause her and her life.

someone45 said...

I did read the article. I just do not agree with it. I do not consider abortion killing and I think taking away a woman's right to control her body makes her inferior.



The ones who do a disservice to women are the ones who think women are less than the fetus inside her and she should be forced into the misery of pregnancy no matter the cost to her life.


I don't think I am inferior and that is why I support my right to control MY body and not give up everything for an unwanted pregnancy.

someone45 said...

The embryo/fetus and the pregnant woman can't be equal when the pregnancy is unwanted. Either the pregnant woman is forced to live in misery for the nine months of pregnancy making her inferior or she can have an abortion.


Pregnancy and parenting would ruin my life. I want a child free life so I would resent the kid for ruining my life and I would never be happy again.


I am not going to punish myself because my BC fails. I am responsible and always use protection. I am not willing to have my life ruined because I am unlucky.

someone45 said...

An abortion after a rape will help the memory of the rape go away. If she is forced to relive the rape every day by being pregnant that is disgusting and shaming her and taking away her bodily rights again on a daily basis.



Forcing her to carry a pregnancy from rape to term is not any different then the rapist forcing himself on her.

myintx said...

I am not your offspring. Parents have responsibility to provide basic food and shelter for their offspring. Before they are born, that responsibility means the unborn child is taken care of in the womb.

myintx said...

Many times, the unborn child is KILLED before it is removed from the woman's body.




It is NOT a womans body that is killed during an abortion now is it? You need to be honest and admit that abortion doesn't just affect the woman, it kills an unborn child. Your denial is pathetic.


Parents have a RESPONSIBILITY for their offspring. Is is ***FORCING*** someone to take care of their newborn when they cant to go to a party ? It might take hours for CPS to show up... they could simply kill their newborn and go to the party, or neglect their newborn and go to the party... And, what if someone told the woman she'd suffer mental anguish if she put her child up for abortion? Is the law now ***FORCING*** her to suffer mental anguish or miss a party? OH NO! The woman HAS to do the right thing. I know that's a tragedy in your messed-up mind, but too freakin bad!

someone45 said...

The woman is the one pregnant. The woman's body the one suffering. The woan gets to decide if her organs and nutrients and life are used against her will or not.


The "unborn child" isn't a child. You know it you just can't admit the truth or it would weaken your view. It is a zygote/embryo/fetus.


After it is out of her body the woman has other options. She can get a baby sitter, put it up for adoption, call one of the 1000000 places you claim are out there to help women... If pregnant though her only option is to suffer in misery if the pregnancy is unwanted or have an abortion. It is not your body. It is not your choice. GET OVER IT.

purrtriarchy said...

Stop moving the goalposts. You said that equal rights = the right to life should that include using another persons body without consent.

Equal individual rights before the law = what I said above. You are arguing rights for fetuses only, which is NOT equal rights before the law. For everyone to be fully equal I should have as much of a claim on your body as a fetus, should my life depend on it.

Coyote said...

And that's my point. Unless one considers killing any viable non-human animals for non-self defense reasons to be morally unjustifiable, then I don't see why the viability criteria should be applied to humans.

Also, I expanded on my previous post. I wonder if one can argue that human beings on dialysis and/or human beings who received donated body parts from someone else can be considered "non-viable" (not from the perspective of the current law, but from the perspective of their own views).

Coyote said...

I applaud your actions and decisions in your own life in regards to this.

I agree about the five minute talk part (and as for my case, I hope to eventually get castrated so that I will never need to worry about pregnancy afterwards). That said, though, do you support changing the current law in regards to this or not?

"Not everyone may morally agree with abortion but they do not get to tell me how to live my life and they do not get to decide what is moral for my life."

That's not a particularly convincing statement, considering that someone can likewise state: "Not everyone may morally agree with elective late-term abortions and/or with infanticide, but they should not get to tell others how to live their lives and they should not get to decide what is morally justifiable for others' lives."

purrtriarchy said...

Sure, PC arguments *could* in theory be used for infanticide, or any number of things, but, it would be pointless, because there IS no need to kill your dog or your baby or your husband because unless they are LIVING INSIDE YOUR BODY you can kick them out the door/hand them over to an adoption agency/spca

someone45 said...

Yep what purrtriarchy said. I had a similar response typed up but that one was better.

purrtriarchy said...

you need to assume that abortion is morally justifiable, which is not something which everyone agrees with.


Actually, that's the point of the statement. There is no agreement on whether or not abortion is morally justifiable. Which is why it's legal. Just like there is no agreement on whether or not a woman wearing a hijab is morally justifiable - in some places it's illegal to go outside without one.

purrtriarchy said...

With your lage question, I am assuming you are referring to people who refuse all treatment and instead choose to die?

Coyote said...

Such arguments wouldn't work in regards to one's husband since one's husband presumably has greater intelligence than non-human animals do.

However in regards to pets and to human infants, this argument appears to only work if there is no shortage of adoptive parents/adoptive pet owners. If there is such a shortage, then I am not sure if there would be a valid pro-choice argument against giving parents/pet owners the choice to euthanize their infants/pets.

Coyote said...

No--I am talking about humans who are on dialysis while they are waiting for kidney to be donated to them and about humans who previously received body parts (a kidney, a liver part, bone marrow, blood) from others in order for them to survive.

purrtriarchy said...

When there is a shortage, yes, infanticide occurs, and yes, it tends to be tacitly accepted, like it or not.


Infanticide has been the rule throughout most of human history, in times of scarce resources.



Interestingly enough, in the middle ages, parents often gave their excess children to the church, who were then essentially enslaved in service of that church.


In modern Africa and much of the developing world today, people simply sell their children, and yes, babies, into prostitution etc. And there is always someone willing to buy a baby to fuck (yes, fucking a baby is believed to be a magical cure all for various diseases).

purrtriarchy said...

People think all sorts of things. I am sure it has happened and will happen.

purrtriarchy said...

Yes, if the alternative is torturing your child/pet to death.

Actually, I forgot to mention brazil - a pro-life country. Have you heard of Brazil's street kids? Yeah, that's another thing that people do, and have done - they simply abandon their babies. Thousands of street kids have roamed in gangs in Brazil.

You might find this to be an interesting read:

http://www.infanticide.org/history.htm

myintx said...

I never said that. I said parents have a responsibility (sorry for the "R" word - I know you hate it) to take basic care of their offspring. That responsibility should start when their offspring are created.

I am not arguing for rights for unborn children only. I'm arguing equal rights for all humans.... If a newborn is keeping it's mother awake and she thinks her 'right to happiness' is ruined, she cannot kill her newborn because it infringes on the newborns 'right to life'. Even if she thinks her 'right to happiness' will be 'destroyed' if she puts her newborn up for adoption. Same with an unborn child. COEXIST

purrtriarchy said...

Equal rights = I get to use your body as life support, just like a fetus

If you are not for that then you are lying about being for equal rights

myintx said...

Is telling a woman she cannot kill her newborn making her 'inferior'?


NO...




Laws protect the vulnerable among us, they don't make anyone 'inferior'.


we need more laws to protect unborn children.

myintx said...

No, the situations are NOT equal. In the case of an unborn child, the life support was freely given before the woman even knew she was pregnant. Once donated, it cannot be taken back. Taking it back will intentionally kill her unborn son or daughter. Not donating it in the first place wont.


Glad I could educate you on that topic.

myintx said...

It's not 'her body' that is killed in an abortion. Your denial is pathetic.

purrtriarchy said...

Nope. NO moving the goalposts sweetie.


Equal rights for all humans = the right to use another persons body as life support.


That's what you keep saying.

someone45 said...

Anyone can care for the newborn. It is not the same of forcing a woman to donate her body and life to be a slave to the fetus.

someone45 said...

No one's body is killed during an abortion. An zef is removed during an abortion and its development is stopped. The pregnant woman has a right to remove the unwanted invader that is inside her.

myintx said...

If a pro-abort told a woman she'd suffer mental anguish if she put her newborn up for adoption, she is basically 'forced' to do something against her will - either CARE for her newborn (gasp!) or 'suffer' the mental anguish associated with putting her child or adoption. The woman HAS to do the right thing. OH NO. She's forced to do something against her will. Too bad. Perhaps she can GET HELP.. Oh yea, there is help out there. What a concept.


A woman should do everything she can so that she can COEXIST for a few short months so that when born, her son or daughter has a chance at a full and productive life.

someone45 said...

After it is a newborn it is not the same as being an unwanted invader insider her body.


Nothing will make coexisting possible for a woman who views pregnancy as nine months of life ruining misery and a woman should not be forced into that. The "son or daughter" has no right to her life and body.

myintx said...

No one is moving the goalposts... except you!


Taking someone's organ is not a 'right'... But intentionally KILLING a human being is wrong. Not donating an organ is not intentionally killing a human being. Abortion is intentional killing.

purrtriarchy said...

Abortion is the withdrawal of life support services.

myintx said...

"After it is a newborn it is not the same as being an unwanted invader insider her body." It IS the same human being. And, there was no 'invasion'. In most cases, the unborn child was invited in via a consensual act... no invading involved.


Uh. Ever heard of therapy and counselling? they are available for women who are struggling with all sorts of issues. A woman facing an unwanted pregnancy can GET HELP... She can T-R-Y. Something you see unwilling to consider.


Every unborn son or daughter should have a right to life. There are 2 body's and 2 lives involved in most pregnancies.

myintx said...

In many cases the unborn child is poisoned or ripped apart - i.e. killed.

purrtriarchy said...

Method of removal is irrelevant if it is unviable.

someone45 said...

It is not the same because once born it can survive without its host.


The unwanted zef is an invader because it is unwanted. That would be like saying because a woman left her door unlocked a burglar didn't really break in.


A woman with an unwanted pregnancy gets to decide how she will handle it. If she decides abortion is the way to go it is her choice and you do not get a say.


It is so sad you think the zef deserves a right to life at the cost of the life of the pregnant woman's happiness and life.

purrtriarchy said...

And life support is removed all the time from the non viable patients in the hospital. And no one is arrested for murder. In fact, even 23 week fetuses are often left to die, because to try to prolong their lives would result in more pain.

myintx said...

if the doctor said the patient would recover within a few months you can bet that they wouldn't be removing life support from patients at the hospital. :)

purrtriarchy said...

They do it all the time actually. Even if there is chance of recovery. Next of kin decides.

myintx said...

The unwanted child is not an invader. In most cases, it was INVITED in during consensual sex. :)


A burglar is not an unborn child. No comparison there. A closer comparison would be if a toddler wandered into a woman's home. She cannot kill it. She cannot toss it out on the streets. She has to WAIT (however long it takes) until the child can be taken care of by someone else.


No one should have the 'choice' to kill.


There are times where a newborn's LIFE is more important than a woman's happiness.... You OK with that? What if a woman is kept awake at night and is afraid of the mental anguish her pro-abort 'friend' told her about if she puts her child up for adoption. What will she do? Her 'right to happiness' is RUINED. Oh, I know. She can GET HELP and get through the tough times until her newborn sleeps through the night, or she can GET HELP to get over the mental anguish of putting her child up for adoption.... You OK with that? Or should her 'right to happiness' not include getting help?

someone45 said...

Oh myintx the unwated zef is an invader you are just so blind in your hatred of women you can't understand that.

A newborn is not a zef and anyone can care for it. Why don't you get that? She has right to decide if the zef stays in her body...


I really don't know why I respond to you . You will always view women as weak and inferior.

purrtriarchy said...

I'd just ignore her. She spent 8 weeks on Patheos blogs boring everyone to tears with the bumper sticker slogans.

She is incapable of thoughtful debate, unlike most of the regulars at SPL.

someone45 said...

I really am starting to think I am going to. I have tried to talk to her so many times and she responds with her #coexist lines and can't say anything original.

myintx said...

No they don't..... If your loved one was clinically brain dead but a doctor said there was an excellent chance your loved one would have a fully functioning brain in a few short months and your loved one never said anything about their wishes to be (or not to be) on life support - would you pull the plug or would you give your loved one a chance?

purrtriarchy said...

Wrong.

myintx said...

If I was incapable of debate, you wouldn't be here debating me :)

myintx said...

You and your 'misery' b s is pretty repetitive my dear.

purrtriarchy said...

I'm not debating you. Just killing time.

You're a joke.

myintx said...

No one should have the 'right' to kill their unborn child.


Women are strong. They can get through a pregnancy. You're the one that thinks you are too weak to handle a pregnancy.

someone45 said...

at least mine is the truth my dear

someone45 said...

and you are the one who thinks they are to inferior and weak to deserve a choice

myintx said...

You don't know that, because you've never been pregnant... or have you?

myintx said...

You didn't answer the question....

myintx said...

Do laws telling a man or a woman they cannot kill their newborn make them look inferior? Do laws telling a woman she cannot kill her unborn child after viability make her look inferior? The laws are there to protect children - born and unborn. We need more laws to protect unborn children.

myintx said...

No one should have a 'choice' to kill their child - born or unborn.

someone45 said...

Oh sweet little myintx you just don't understand the difference between INSIDE someone's body and OUTSIDE do you...

myintx said...

An unborn child INSIDE a woman's body and a born child OUTSIDE a woman's body are both human beings. They both should have a right to life.

someone45 said...

Nope you still don't get it. If INSIDE the woman it is her choice.

myintx said...

Nope - not after viability, in most states...


No one should have the 'choice' to kill an unborn child.

William Cable said...

How does it make her inferior? Pregnancy is a biological function, not a punishment. Asking someone not to kill someone else doesn't make them inferior.

purrtriarchy said...

It's natural so it must be good? That's your argument?

Sarah Eilerson said...

How is a tubal slash and burn plus vasectomy a 'lie?' It's been foolproof for us for 23 years. Never been pregnant. Can't argue with results like that.

Coyote said...

I am tempted to say that I support changing the law in order to facilitate this.

Coyote said...

"So you expect people (women) to stay abstinent their entire lives? Laughable. Utterly unrealistic."

Well, pro-choicers except males to do this, so ...

Ann Morgan said...

Umm, no. Having sex is not equivalent to 'inviting' a fetus into your body any more than leaving a door unlocked is equivalent to 'inviting' a burglar into your house, and now your body belongs to the embryo and all your money belongs to the burglar.

The fact that you are a rapist and deliberately got pregnant to try and trap the babydaddy doesn't mean that other people got pregnant on purpose. It also makes you immoral and a very poor arbiter of what morality others should live by.

**She cannot kill it.**
If it's attached to her and feeding on her, she can.


**She cannot toss it out on the streets.**
Yes, she can.


**She has to WAIT (however long it takes) until the child can be taken care of by someone else.**



No, she does not have to WAIT. Not for a 'few short months'. Not for a few short minutes.

Ann Morgan said...

I think you can get through my stealing one of your kidneys, which dialysis patients need for their 'very lives'. You're the one who thinks that you are too weak to handle having only one kidney. Let me guess, that's somehow different.

fiona64 said...

Women are strong. They can get through a pregnancy.

Which must be why the US, for example, has no maternal mortalities whatsoever?

Oh, wait. That's 100 percent incorrect (just like every other damned thing you say). We have actually gotten *worse* and are #60 in the world. A pregnant woman in *China* is less likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than one in the US. Oops. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/maternal-deaths-in-childbirth-rise-in-the-us/2014/05/02/abf7df96-d229-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html