Pages

Monday, September 15, 2014

How does the pro-life movement look to LGBT pro-lifers?

Secular Pro-Life strongly encourages pro-lifers from different backgrounds to seek to understand one another and form coalitions in the fight against abortion. SPL’s main focus, obviously, is on different religious backgrounds. We ask our allies in the pro-life movement to help SPL create space for pro-life secularists and give secularists a stronger voice in the movement. In turn, we feel it’s important that SPL helps give a stronger voice to other non-traditional pro-lifers.

Today’s blog post focuses on the perspectives of LGBT pro-lifers. We interviewed four pro-lifers who identify as follows:

Deanna Unyk, a queer atheist.
Nate Sheets, a gay atheist.
Albany Rose Saindon, a pansexual atheist.
Rachel E., a bisexual Roman Catholic.

SPL does not necessarily agree with every view expressed in this post, but we leave the content unedited in order to give a voice to an element of the pro-life movement that is frequently ignored. We hope the perspectives here will help all of us gain better insight into how the pro-life movement looks to pro-lifers of different sexualities.





How would you define the term "pro-life"?

Deanna: I would define "pro-life" as the position that abortion, in general, ought to be illegal.

Nate: People who are pro-life think that there are better alternatives to ending life in the womb. They have a variety of reasons for believing this.

Albany: “Pro-Life,” to me, is knowing all innocent life is valuable, born and pre-born. I think being pro-life means never being cruel, condemning, or saying harsh words towards abortion-minded or post-abortive men and women. We cannot fit into the stereotype that we simply care about the fetus. We must always show love, kindness, and patience. Without that we won't get very far.

Rachel: Generally, I think being pro-life means respecting the right to life of human beings from fertilization to a natural death.


Some people believe abortion has relatively little effect on the LGBT community. Do you think this is true? Why or why not?

Deanna: I guess my shortest answer would be yes and no. Yes, because those in monogamous homosexual relationships would be less likely to have to deal with unintended pregnancy for obvious reasons. On the other hand, though, bisexuals can be engaged in monogamous heterosexual relationships. Lesbians can still get pregnant from rape and gay men can suffer from the past abortions of former lovers. Trans men who haven't had bottom surgery can still engage in procreative sex and end up pregnant and trans women can get others pregnant if they are having procreative sex. So, the LGBT community is not necessarily immune to unintended pregnancy and thus the legal option of abortion.

It is important to consider also that when LGBT people have an experience with unintended pregnancy they may face different challenges than their straight counterparts. They may view the pregnancy as a blow to their personal identity and there are unique challenges that come with that.

Furthermore, from a pro-life standpoint, abortion is the biggest human rights violation in our society, and I believe anytime one group is being mistreated in a particular society it affects all members of that society. In that sense abortion affects all of us, LGBT people included.


Nate: I guess I can understand that perspective. In some ways, abortion has little to do with us, but you could say the same thing about any other civil rights issue. LGBT people have experienced a history of violence, discrimination, and oppression, and so have the unborn, though in a different way. But no, I don't link the issue of abortion to LGBT rights normally. 




Rachel: I definitely disagree with the notion that abortion has little effect on the LGBT community. I think there’s a general principle that we as people are not insular. We can’t simply say “Oh, that’s someone else’s issue.” Injustice against one community of the human family is an injustice against all people. We are LGBT people and we can help change the world.

Beyond the ideas of solidarity with the entire human community, I think there are a few issues that affect the LGBT community specifically:

If there was a “gay gene” that could be detected before birth, I believe some people would take advantage of that. Some people would have abortions simply because the unborn person would grow up to be an LGBT adult.

Transgender men (people designated at birth as female who identify as men) are a particularly vulnerable population in the current climate. Because many of these men have not transitioned physically, they are capable of being pregnant. This poses so many problems for the individual – most do not feel that, as a man, there should be any pregnancy involved. The result of pregnancy in a transgender man can be extremely dysphoric; their body is performing processes that they’ve tried to escape.

Because of the heteronormative nature of most sexual education programs, LGBT people are far less likely to use forms of protection in their sexual activities. The lesbian and bisexual teen pregnancy rate is 12% higher than heterosexual peers, and they experience twice the risk for unintended pregnancy. It’s not what’s usually expected, but LGBT people do get pregnant.

Additionally, many don’t realize that LGBT people are just as susceptible, if not more susceptible, to rape as heterosexual people are. According to 2013 data from the CDC, lesbians and gay men report lifetime levels of sexual violence equal to those of heterosexuals, and bisexual women actually experience significantly higher rates of sexual violence. We cannot forget the very real fact that LGBT people can also experience pregnancies that result from rape.

Finally, many LGBT people are waiting to adopt children. I don’t think this is the first reason to be pro-life, but I think it’s a good supplementary reason.



How would you describe your own position on abortion? How long have you held that position and how did you arrive at it?

Deanna: I would describe myself as pro-life, because I believe most forms of abortion ought to be illegal. Until about 6 months ago, I was pro-choice and I wrote a blog called "Restringing the Violinist" where I focused on defending bodily rights arguments. So I'm pretty new to the movement.

I’ve long thought that unborn children are valuable human persons, but I remained pro-choice because of my view of bodily autonomy. Changing my mind took time and involved many different factors. I still believe that women have the right to refuse to allow other people to use their bodies as life-support. As a result, to me, abortion is an issue that involves a conflict of rights: the mother’s right to refuse and the unborn child's right to (a) not be killed and (b) not have his or her bodily rights violated by being dismembered.

When I was pro-choice my view was similar to David Boonin’s view in his book “A Defense of Abortion.” I believed abortion did not violate the right to life of the unborn child because I believed (and still believe) the right to life does not include the right to use someone else's body to survive. However, I also believe the right to life does include the right to not be killed, and most abortions do actively kill the unborn. Thus, abortion does violate the unborn’s right to life in most cases. Additionally, in surgical abortions the unborn child is often dismembered, and I think bodily rights should really include the right to not be dismembered. In the end I couldn't justify legalized abortion to protect the mother’s bodily rights when the bodily rights and the right to life of the unborn child are violated during an abortion.

Even then I didn't immediately convert to the pro-life side. Being pro-choice was a big part of my personal identity. I identify as a liberal person. But what kind of liberal is against abortion? I think I had this fear in my mind that there wasn't a place for a queer atheist in the pro-life movement. I think deep down I worried that if I wanted to be active in the movement I would have to be surrounded by a bunch of religious old men that would constantly harass me to convert or tell me that my "lifestyle" makes God want to vomit.

So, in addition to the pro-life arguments, my friendship with Josh Brahm was also instrumental in my conversion. Josh and I had been friends for about a year and he remains one of the kindest and most open-minded people I know. Being friends with Josh helped break down the pro-life stereotypes in my mind. Although he never told me explicitly, I knew that I would have an ally in the pro-life movement who would love and accept me for who I was. So I ended up "coming out" again, this time as a pro-lifer. 


Nate: I have a very conflicted opinion on abortion. The issue is framed so there’s a dichotomy between a woman's bodily integrity and a fetus' right to not be dismembered. I am conflicted because I believe strongly in both, and yet there often seems to be an impasse between the two. To me, abortion addresses the issue of bodily autonomy, but in all the wrong ways. 

I used to have a more typical pro-life stance, but now as an atheist and lover of science, my position is much less firm as I see all of the grays that this issue presents. In many ways, I do not blame a woman who gets an abortion because, at least on the surface, there appears to be no alternative that will not ruin the woman's life. People do what they feel like they have to do. Pro-lifers try and present other options, but the pro-choice movement also works with a different agenda.

But, when push comes to shove, I simply cannot fathom the logic that leads people to be okay with dismembering a fetus. As a society, we should be beyond this--we are killing our own children, with the excuse that they are occupying our space? Who the hell do we think we are?


Albany: When it comes to abortion I am no exceptions Pro-Life. Outside of ectopic pregnancies, which most pro-lifers I know do not consider abortions, I do not agree that a situation can justify taking an innocent life. I have held my pro-life beliefs for almost three years now, after being pro-choice for almost my whole life before converting. Shortly after turning 16, I was coerced into an abortion, which lead me down a destructive path and ultimately made me feel like I had to be pro-choice to justify what I had allowed to happen. I ended up becoming pro-life after seeing the ultrasound of our first daughter. Her heartbeat, her little movements, it was like everything I had believed prior about the fetus and abortion came crumbling down all around me.


Rachel: I was raised in a pro-life family, and I don’t know if I ever had any sort of eureka moment. I think as I got older, my views became more mature and nuanced. I learned about the larger complexities of the issue. I certainly believe that when I started blogging about the issues my views became much more firm and I was far more knowledgeable about abortion and the pro-life movement in general.


Have you interacted much with the overall pro-life movement (e.g. walks, rallies, meetings, protests, political activities, sidewalk counseling, pregnancy centers, etc.)? If so, how has that gone? If not, why not?

Deanna: In the time that I've been pro-life I've gone to the Alberta March for Life and I went to an apologetics seminar put on by the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform.

The March for Life made me feel somewhat alienated. I wore a shirt with a short pro-life argument on the front and "Atheist for Life" on the back. Most of the speakers were quite religious and a number of them said things I really found offensive. For example, one of the first speakers (I believe he was a priest) said something along the lines of, "The pro-life position is religious in nature, so in order to recruit people to our cause we need to work really hard to convert as many people as we can!" The most disheartening part about that statement was the thunderous applause it elicited from my fellow pro-lifers. Another speaker said something like, "Concepts like the right to life and intrinsic human value are grounded in Christianity, so we can't appeal to them when talking to secularists." Towards the end of the rally they included about 20 minutes of a Ukrainian Catholic mass (translated to English).

In some ways this March was pretty difficult for me. I see religion and sexuality as somewhat connected. A big part of what made coming out as queer difficult for me was my parents’ reactions, and their reactions were grounded, at least partly, in religion. So religion in general, and the Ukrainian Catholic faith in particular, can trigger my anger over unfair judgment toward my sexuality and fear I once had that God hated me. It was already difficult to be new to the pro-life movement and not having anyone in my city to go to this pro-life event with me. To then be surrounded by triggers and to see speakers act as if pro-lifers like me don't exist made the experience even more exhausting.

However, the March for Life wasn't entirely a negative experience. A man behind me saw my shirt and went out of his way to tell me that he was glad I was there. One speaker mentioned the importance of including secularists in the movement and trying to appeal to them. I was also texting Josh at the time and he was very encouraging and he seemed to be exited that I was already getting involved in the movement. I was also encouraged by the number of young people who attended. A girl, who appeared to be in high school, gave me a sign that looked homemade and read "A Person's a Person No Matter How Small" and I held it up while I longboarded alongside my fellow pro-life marchers.  I was also invited to go to an apologetics seminar put on by the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, which was exciting for me.

A few months after the March I ended up attending the seminar. This was a much more positive experience for me. The speakers were extremely gracious and they emphasized the importance of finding common ground and treating pro-choice people with the respect that all persons deserve. It was also secular, which I appreciated. The tone of the seminar leaders was incredibly kind. I like to say "they oozed kindness" but oozing is clearly the wrong word. I disagreed with some of the arguments they taught, but I did learn a lot and it was helpful just to be surrounded by like-minded people who are passionate about helping others. 


Nate: I have not participated in a mainstream pro-life event for several years. As an atheist, I don't want to feel like I'm at a church service. As a lover of science, I get frustrated with how many pro-lifers say "We have science on our side!" when, in reality, the majority of them have little understanding or interest in "science" beyond some fetal developmental milestones. The irony of the religion with the science rhetoric being all in the same place is too much. So I don’t participate in the mainstream movement, but I currently admin a large Atheist/Agnostic (and LGBT-friendly) pro-life group on Facebook. [If you'd like to join this Facebook group, please read the About section first.]

It is also difficult to participate in one issue with a group of people who you know fight against you on another. In some cases, anti-LGBT rhetoric peppers the conversations at these events. Pro-lifers have this idea that the Right to Life trumps everything else, so any other conflicts are considered secondary. But the fact is, my equal rights and protection under the law are important to me, and to have people who claim to stand up for the rights of "everyone" (meaning, fetuses) while they have disapproval in their hearts and discrimination in their votes against people like me is not something I can easily get past. Thankfully, I am seeing more and more pro-LGBT pro-lifers these days.


Albany: The greatest interaction I have in the pro-life movement (as I'm a stay at home mom with few ways to travel) is that I have become a YouTube vlogger. It has allowed me to reach tens of thousands of people all from my own home. I did participate in one walk for life here in Denver, but truthfully it was disappointing. Right after I told my story and shortly before we began the walk, speakers starting talking about traditional marriage and, "don't forget to vote against [a marriage equality] bill." It was disheartening how they so easily shunned people at an event that had nothing to do with one’s sexuality. The pro-life movement should be about coming together to protect life and should not be used as a billboard for other beliefs. I do enjoy, however, going out to the Planned Parenthood in the next town up and holding a sign that reads, "I Regret My Abortion." While there are negative comments, the overall reaction is positive, and it is clear when it makes someone think.


Rachel: My first activism for the pro-life movement was when I was about seven or so. My mom brought me to a “rosary rally” event, and we passed out the “precious feet” pins and bumper stickers. Right now my biggest activism is done through my blogging on Tumblr. I’ve got about 1,095 followers now. I’ve been to the March for Life in 2013, and over the summer I had an internship with Life Matters Journal.


How accessible is the pro-life movement for you? How could it be more accessible? What are some ways other pro-lifers could make LGBT people feel welcome? 

Deanna: I feel like the pro-life movement needs to work on welcoming LGBT people. Being more inclusive in their language and maybe turning down the volume on the religious aspect could be really helpful. Even saying things like "although I think homosexuality is morally wrong, we welcome everyone into the movement including those from all sexual orientations. We appreciate you being here" would go a long way. Using arguments that appeal to all people regardless of religious or sexual identity would also be extremely helpful. Having other LGBT pro-life role models would be great, so I think those who are already in the movement need to work on finding each other and being more visible. 


Nate: The movement is somewhat accessible. Thanks to social media, there are many smaller groups that you can join that fit what you're looking for. However, if the pro-life movement started leaving their religion at home instead of bringing it to the events, that would be a good start, as well as sticking to abortion and not bringing up gay marriage or other non-related issues. More room for nuanced views--or at least discussion--of abortion would be awesome, too. 


Albany: Truthfully, the pro-life movement isn't very accessible to me outside of my home. While there are some speakers that travel occasionally in the area, and groups go to pray outside clinics, there are not many options for me. However, going back to my vlogging and public pro-life speaker page, it allows me to connect in a more accessible way. I do wish I knew more people in the area who were open to simply traveling short distances to hold signs with me, to sidewalk counsel, or even pro-life chalk.

I firmly believe that if more religious pro-lifers would stop tying in outside beliefs of the church to abortion, such as views on homosexuality or competition with other religious beliefs, it would allow more in the LGBT community to open up and listen. I think many in religion have dug themselves into a hole by perpetuating the stereotype that they want nothing to do with someone who is gay, when in reality many religious people will happily work alongside the LGBT community to help end abortion. The movement simply needs to vocalize that more through love.


Rachel: With the pro-life circles I associate with, it’s been no problem for me. However, when I venture out from more secular and open groups, people can become less than accepting. Some are outright hostile, but many are just patronizing about the LGBT community. Many of the traditional Christian pro-life groups seem to pity us or think that somehow they’re better. I think if many people thought “Let’s leave the sexuality out of it and work on the commonalities,” we could feel more included. We’re queer, and we’re pro-life. I don’t see why there should be any contradictions there.

414 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 414   Newer›   Newest»
Rachel Anne Enders said...

Wait. I was put in the hospital not by my choice when I was 18.

Caleb Van Der Weide said...

Well, considering it fits the form of the question "is it ever moral to directly and intentionally cause harm to innocent human beings?", I think the answer is no, unless of course it does not directly and intentionally case harm, or the object of this harm is not an innocent human being. Is the zygote guilty? Of a species other than human? Is death not harm? Do you think it is okay to directly and intentionally harm innocent human beings?

Plum Dumpling said...

I did notice but I skimmed only. I will go back and read your testimony more carefully.
Why do you reject the RCC's position on sexuality as far as orgasm/gender is concerned but support their misogyny where a woman's fertility is concerned? I ask in all seriousness as one RC woman to another.

Gaiuse Strome said...

I think the answer is no, unless of course it does not directly and intentionally case harm

Of course it does, if you willingly put innocent human beings in harms way, no? So choosing to have sex, knowing that your body *will* kill innocent people is uh, if not murder, at least reckless endangerment yeah?

Caleb Van Der Weide said...

Considering you seem to be an expert in the area should you not at least be answering my questions, and yours?

Gaiuse Strome said...

You can get your ass thrown in jail for reckless endangerment.

And uh, many pro-lifers believe that it is murder to deny a fertilized ovum access to one's uterus.

Where do you stand on the issue?

Plum Dumpling said...

Gay God believing pro lifer here. Naturally I am pro choice. You are merely pro birth. And if you want to make abortion illegal, you are pro death.

Speaksvolumes said...

Cool story, bro.

Caleb Van Der Weide said...

Please answer my questions; that is how one conducts a rational discussion, instead of a one-sided interrogation. If it makes it simpler for you your chosen euphemism does not match science: after fertilization the ovum and sperm cell fuse and join, forming the zygote. You can call it a fertilized ovum if it makes you feel better, but try to keep in mind that by that rationale you and I are also fertilized ovum, just one that has split and grown many times.

Gaiuse Strome said...

You can call it a fertilized ovum if it makes you feel better, but try
to keep in mind that by that rationale you and I are also fertilized
ovum, just one that has split and grown many times.


You sure about that,cupcake?

Caleb Van Der Weide said...

Your rationale, not mine, precious little cherry.

Gaiuse Strome said...

I'm a bit fuzzy on the concept myself.

BTW, you have something on your shirt.

Caleb Van Der Weide said...

Fair enough, I didn't know anything about endometrial ablation till I saw your comment.
Chances are I do, not much I can do about it though.

expect_resistance said...

72 hour hold or long term commitment? There could be a difference state by state. I didn't find being hospitalized helpful. It only made me loathe the system more.

Gaiuse Strome said...

I only learned about uterine artery embolization last week..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uterine_artery_embolization


It essentially cuts off blood supply to the utuerus, which will kill any implanted embryos, and also prevent them from implanting, as the blood vessels that they normally drill into will be sealed off.

Plum Dumpling said...

Quote: My question is this: Is abortion /really/ the cause of the suicidality or is it something else? It seems as if the real underlying cause would be something else.
.........................
Depression is a life threatening illness. Is it your position that a woman with diagnosed depression should be compelled by law to give birth when she has expressed a wish to have an abortion?

Jennifer Starr said...

A uterine ablation does prevent an embryo from implanting.

Speaksvolumes said...

From Merriam-Webster:

rape

verb

: to force (someone) to have sex with you by using violence or the threat of violence

So, um...no. Criminalizing abortion isn't rape. You may find other's attempts to criminalize abortion offensive or intrusive. But it isn't rape. You don't get to just change the meanings of words to suit your agenda.

90Lew90 said...

Neat! But hey, check this out. You've just had the misfortune to be trying to tell an Irishman about the pissy little so-called Dublin Declaration. 900 signatories in all. Worth jack. That was a PR stunt by a health service in panic because of the death of a woman whose life could have been saved by an abortion, and whose child in any case had no chance. Her husband was told Ireland is "a Catholic country" by doctors, who apparently were unaware that they could have performed that lifesaving procedure in that case.

Now compare your 900 signatories, PR stunt as it was, with the more than 10,000 people who didn't sign but got up and took to the streets to march in Dublin two months later, to protest against Ireland's primitive, religious-hangover abortion laws. Keep in mind that Ireland's a small place and Dublin's still a pretty tiny city. Read some context about that march after the death of Savita Halappanavar here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/17/march-dublin-abortion-death Here: http://news.sky.com/story/1012735/dublin-protest-over-indian-abortion-death Read about the entire case here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

Now, my initial question, to which you gave this non-answer was: What qualifies you to say that "abortion wouldn't solve the trauma of rape"?

Plum Dumpling said...

Here we go with the dictionary again. The dictionary gives the most common meaning in use currently. It is not useful beyond high school. Useless in law for example.


Rape is commonly understood as a crime involving power over and/or sexual assault.


Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse (or other forms of sexual penetration) initiated against one or more individuals without the consent of those individuals. The act may be carried out by physical force,coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legalage of consent.[1][2][3][4] The term rape is sometimes used interchangeably with the term sexual assault.[5]



The term rape originates in the Latin rapere, from raptus, "to snatch, to grab, to carry off".[21][22] Since the 14th century, the term has come to mean "to seize and take away by force".[1] In Roman law the carrying off of a woman by force, with or without intercourse, constituted "raptus".[22] In Medieval English law the same term could refer to either kidnapping or rape in the modern sense of "sexual violation".[21] The original meaning of "carry off by force" is still found in some phrases, such as "rape and pillage" or in titles, such as the story of the Rape of the Sabine Women or the poem The Rape of the Lock, which is about the theft of a lock of hair.

Speaksvolumes said...

Which form are you using, the one in common usage or the one not in common usage?

Kristin said...

Since abortion is death, if anyone is pro-death, it's you. Also, how do you know that person isn't pro-life in all other ways? There are lots of liberal pro-lifers too.

Plum Dumpling said...

And I should be concerned about all of that because ... ?

Plum Dumpling said...

When rapists cannot use their own junk to do a rape, they use objects: sticks, bottles, knives and laws. It is a toss up which satisfies a rapist more, the orgasm or the power over.

Speaksvolumes said...

So you're using the in ignorance when describing criminalization of abortion.

Plum Dumpling said...

Sez you.

Speaksvolumes said...

Please, explain to me how criminalizing abortion is rape. I'll wait. While you check the 14th century definition.

Plum Dumpling said...

Refute me.

Speaksvolumes said...

Why would I need to? You did that all by yourself.

Plum Dumpling said...

Another who thinks the dictionary is definitive in law and social policy. Snore.

Speaksvolumes said...

Another who thinks she can change the definition of words to suit her own agenda. Yawn.

Plum Dumpling said...

Both and the meaning of 'seize' in the Constitution. When I see some indication you have read and understood what I wrote, we can continue our conversation. And not until then.

Speaksvolumes said...

Ha! I love how you make these ultimatums like I'm beholden to your approval. It makes me feel all tingly inside.

You said criminalizing abortion is rape. No, it isn't, no matter how much you try to change the definition.

Kristin said...

Because you commented "you're merely pro-birth" when the person could very well be pro-life in all other ways in addition to birth.

Plum Dumpling said...

I have no idea what you just typed to me. Still. Want to try again?

Plum Dumpling said...

I am waiting for you to refute the definition I provided. No more conversation until you do so.
'Nuh uh' is not an argument.

Plum Dumpling said...

I am pro life in ALL WAYS. The OP is pro birth. And if the OP wishes to criminalize abortion - the OP is also pro death.

Plum Dumpling said...

Abortion is the cure for not wanting to be pregnant.
You recommend a woman diagnosed for depression who has asked for an abortion be compelled to give birth?
How will that cure or ameliorate her depression?

Plum Dumpling said...

Who is 'we?'

90Lew90 said...

Well I've just slam-dunked our squishy Rachel a couple of posts below if you're interested.

Gaiuse Strome said...

The stuff about Ireland was interesting. I'll be bookmarking that. I had no idea that the "conference" was an attempt to whitewash Savitas death. It makes sense though, as news of her death broke a few days later...

90Lew90 said...

The "conference" was a committee of nine and the "900 signatories" are signatories to a web petition. You could become a signatory yourself if you felt inclined. I've clarified that in an edit to my post there. Rachel? Gone! I didn't even get to ask her about her "gay gene".

90Lew90 said...

They're talking about abortion as a "treatment" for suicidality. That's a completely different issue.

Once again, you said: "My point is that abortion wouldn't solve the trauma of rape either."

Once again! What qualifies you to make that assertion?

Plum Dumpling said...

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a national organization representing thousands of women’s health experts, has publicly come out against the state-level abortion restrictions that impact the way doctors are allowed to treat their patients. The group’s Executive Board has issued an official statement opposing all laws that “unduly interfere with patient-physician relationships” and compromise patients’ health care for political gain.

“Given the relentless legislative assault on the patient-physician relationship that we’ve seen in the past few years — and unfortunately continue to see — we were compelled to issue a formal Statement of Policy,” the group’s president, Dr. Jeanne A. Conry, explained in a press release. “A disproportionate number of these types of laws are aimed at women’s reproductive rights and the physicians that provide women’s health care services.”

In its formal statement, the doctors’ group criticized specific pieces of anti-abortion legislation that comes between women and their doctors — including forced ultrasound laws that require women seeking abortions to look at an image of their fetus before continuing with the medical procedure, “disclosure” laws that require doctors to tell women about the scientifically disputed link between abortion and breast cancer, and laws that require doctors to use an outdated procedure for administering the abortion pill.

The OB-GYNs point out that these type of laws allow legislators, instead of doctors, to set medical protocol. When doctors aren’t allowed to follow the current accepted medical practice because of a politically-motivated law, they aren’t able to provide their patients with the best quality of care. That dynamic has contributed to a serious shortage of women’s health doctors in states with harsh abortion restrictions, since medical professionals would rather avoid situations in which they may have to choose between providing their patients with the best health care and following a complicated state law.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/10/2129831/doctors-group-anti-abortion-political-agenda/

Plum Dumpling said...

A fetus is not a human being.

Plum Dumpling said...

Define progress as you see it please.

Jennifer Starr said...

Let me ask this. If my mother was the source of my suicidal intentions, if she tormented me. It she kicked me out of the house and took every penny I have... Would I have the right to "take away the problem" by killing her?
You would have the right to move far away from her and never see her again, thereby separating yourself from the situation.

Plum Dumpling said...

A fetus is not a person. A fetus becomes a legal person and a human being when it survives to and through birth.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A Catholic hospital in Colorado has argued in court documents that it is not liable for the deaths of two 7-month-old fetuses because those fetuses are not people.

So far, courts have side with the hospital.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/fetuses-not-people-catholic-hospital-says-in-court-case/1863013/

Plum Dumpling said...

Doctors can do nothing to stop someone from killing themselves if they are determined to do so.


You live in some fevered dream. Reality is for those who cannot deal with drugs. And is a potent get high.

Plum Dumpling said...

Quote: Abortion only takes a life.
..............
Lie. YOU LIE A LOT.

Those Who Ignore History Are Doomed to Repeat It
Posted on August 25, 2014

For most of my career, I have been able to care for women without fear of major complications or death from abortion. However, I have not forgotten those days when safe abortion was generally unavailable. I was delighted when I delivered my first baby in 1968. But at that time in our history, the exciting events of bringing babies into this world were often countered by the tragedies of illegal abortion.

Enough time has passed since the legalization of abortion in the US that it appears much of our society has forgotten the dangers of unsafe pregnancy termination and the desperation of women encountering an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy. It is estimated that approximately 13% of maternal deaths worldwide are due to unsafe abortion. The death rates are even higher in some countries where abortion has been totally banned.

No one has a greater appreciation for the value of human life than those of us who dedicate our lives to the wellbeing of mothers and the delivery of their babies. No other profession has a better knowledge of the complexity of the reproductive process, the potential complications, and the tragic circumstances that can sometimes accompany pregnancy than obstetrics and gynecology. We understand the current science of embryology and factors associated with both normal and abnormal human development. We know and deeply appreciate when a human embryo reaches a stage of fetal development where survivability outside the mother becomes a possibility. We know that a safely performed outpatient pregnancy termination in the first trimester has a complication rate of approximately 0.3%, of which most are minor.

We also know that in many cases, pregnancy termination any time prior to fetal viability is far safer than proceeding with the pregnancy. We respect the ethnic, cultural, religious, social, and moral differences that might factor into a decision to end a pregnancy. Termination of any pregnancy is difficult, but under many circumstances, it is the best alternative for a woman. She has that freedom of choice.

During one of my many trips to Washington, DC, my wife and I took a walk to the Jefferson Memorial. After you enter the memorial, you can read Thomas Jefferson’s passionate words on religious freedom. His words prompt questions that may be answered differently according to the reader’s perspective. Was Jefferson’s expression of separation of church and state intended to entitle persons to make their own religious choices and beliefs within the moral framework of society? Should government interfere in such a personal choice as whether or not to bear a child? A birth certificate legally records our day of birth, but should the government even attempt to arbitrate the debate of scientific versus religious interpretation of the beginning of life?

Somehow, I believe Jefferson would be greatly offended by the current legislative and judicial interference into the highly personal patient-physician relationship. Our specialty of obstetrics and gynecology ardently supports the dignity, rights, and autonomy of all women. I also believe all of us who deliver babies have an intense reverence for life. However, we must not ignore or misinterpret our country’s history of personal freedom and the history of tragic consequences of illegal, unsafe abortion. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
http://acogpresident.org/?p=1015

Gaiuse Strome said...

SPL has already had blog posts on the subject. Who cares about unsafe illegal abortion...why make something legal just to protect the lives of murderers and criminals??

Which is amusing, since they talk out of the other side of their mouths, with faux concern about the "life" and "health" of these supposed murderers when defending trap laws.

So which is it guys?

Women who abort, no matter the risk, are heartless killers who deserve what they get?

Or women are innocent, brainwashed morons who need to be protected from themselves?

lady_black said...

Well, if you cannot counsel someone into wanting to be pregnant, then you are harming them.

lady_black said...

It can INDEED be part of the treatment plan. Abortion isn't a treatment for mental health issues. It doesn't need to be. It's a treatment for not wanting to be pregnant, and for that purpose, it's an effective treatment.

Plum Dumpling said...

lol. Well said. You will either not get an answer or you will get a lot of babbling and bullshit.

lady_black said...

The nature of free, adult human beings in general is that you are exempted from having an opinion on the issues of other free, adult human beings. The fact that you have no personal experience of pregnancy only means that you are incapable of understanding the nuances of the decision to become, or not become a parent.

lady_black said...

You may well *want* to help. You can't help. Trust me on this... you do not want to manage the lives of other free, adult women. You only get blamed when it doesn't work out.

lady_black said...

Frankly, unless it's your pregnancy and your issues, who cares what you think? You don't get to manage anyone's life but your own. It's my opinion that you already have enough on your plate.

lady_black said...

Yeah... No. There can be no "progress" with forced birthers. Either I'm a slave, or I'm not. There is no compromise, regardless of your sad feelies about the fetus.

lady_black said...

Assuming that your mother isn't attached to your blood supply and leeching nutrients from your body, the answer is no. If she is attached to you and leeching nutrients from your body, then feel free to detach her.

lady_black said...

Abortion doesn't involve killing a person either.

lady_black said...

If they do not want to be touched by you, and you touch them, that is a battery.

lady_black said...

I'm a nurse. Doctors and nurses do not have the right to commit a battery on a patient. That means if they don't want their medicine, I can't make them take it. If they don't want to eat, I can't force-feed them.

lady_black said...

To me, the seed of a rapist that I hate having inside me IS an aggressor. Deal with it. You cannot force me to carry it in my body. Not for nine months. Not for nine minutes.

lady_black said...

Who cares? I owe nothing to the seed of a rapist.

lady_black said...

Again... who cares? It's not your body and not your decision.

lady_black said...

I wouldn't use the word person, because it's not a person. It may be human. It may be unwanted. Too bad. So sad.

lady_black said...

You have a right to take a life when you have a right to take a life. And that isn't "never."

Plum Dumpling said...

You know nothing at all about mental health, childbirth, gynecology and obstetrics.
It is the mark of the zealot that, in spite of your ignorance, you demand to be in charge of the sexual/family lives of women you will never even know.
What HUBRIS. What NARCISSISM.

Plum Dumpling said...

Well said.

Jennifer Starr said...

I should also mention that the case mentioned above is something that actually happened in the late '60s early '70s.

Speaksvolumes said...

"It may be human..."

And it also may be a...?

lady_black said...

I made a typo. That should have said "It's human, it's alive. It may be unwanted."

Speaksvolumes said...

Hey! Presumptuous spokesperson for people borne of rape: I'm still waiting for those stories that prove they wish they were dead. What's the hold up?

lady_black said...

No, actually doctors are NOT allowed to intervene in the situation where someone doesn't want to eat. Patients have rights.

lady_black said...

Yes. What is so tough about that? You can't force-feed people.

Gaiuse Strome said...

As do prisoners. Its assault and battery to force feed an inmate.

And I just learned that early suffragettes were force fed - up to 15x a day..or more.

lady_black said...

Well, they can't. Get over it. Having an adult declared incompetent is a very high hurdle.

Gaiuse Strome said...

Hang around here, Patheos blogs, and FTB. You will hear stories from people who would have preferred not to have been born vs used as a torture device on their mother.

Speaksvolumes said...

Well done. So you acknowledge an unborn human IS a human being.

Gaiuse Strome said...

Cancer is also a "human being"

H.sapiens DNA = YES

Being = it exists

Speaksvolumes said...

Hey! You know what we offer to those people? Mental health counselling! Unless of course you think we ought to counsel those people to commit suicide? Would you say to that person "yep, you should be dead, rape baby"? Do you tell them they should've been aborted? You're a ghoul.

Gaiuse Strome said...

Strawman noted and discarded.

Needs more exclamations. You are not nearly self righteous enough. Turn it up to 11,baby.

lady_black said...

IT DOESN'T MATTER! There was a case not too long ago concerning one of those snake-handing nutcase churches and the "minister" gets bitten by the poisonous snake. Paramedics are summoned to the scene. The minister refuses treatment. Now the option for caregivers isn't "You're endangering your life, and you're coming with us, whether you like it or not." They have a duty to inform the patient what the possible consequences of refusing care, including death. He still refuses. They have to leave. The upshot is that they came back, hoping to find the man unconscious. Because when someone is unconscious, they are assumed to consent to emergency treatment. When they came back the last time, the man was dead. His choice.

lady_black said...

Unless you are a minor or an adjudicated incompetent, you cannot be forcefully hospitalized. It's probably a good idea if you voluntarily continue your medication, but you can't be compelled to.

lady_black said...

There is nothing ethically wrong with it. A patient has an absolute right to refuse medical treatment. You can refuse to be their doctor anymore, so long as you find another doctor for them, such as a palliative care specialist.

lady_black said...

Well, here's the skinny on that, kiddo. If your life was endangered by a pregnancy (such as ectopic) and you refused an abortion, they are not allowed to proceed. If you wish to leave the hospital AMA, you can do that. Hopefully, someone will find you passed out from blood loss after the tube ruptures, and 911 will be summoned. You will then be transported to the ER and surgery, where your tube will be removed, hopefully before you die.

lady_black said...

Your thoughts are not only, not well-worded. They aren't well thought, or well informed. This is the United States, and we do not do forced medical procedures here. Not even on a corpse.

Lindsey Leigh Phillips said...

Lipstick on a pig.

Plum Dumpling said...

You have failed to reply to anyone in a substantive way. You have not responded to emotional replies, factual replies and any questions directly and to the point.


Your chief argument seems to be: Abortion is bad because I say so. I do not like it. So I am going to make sure with a stick that you do not do it. And that is good and right and the lesbian angels approve.


You come anywhere near my beautiful daughters in real life to enforce your forced birth agenda and I will hurt you. You folks are dangerous.

Speaksvolumes said...

"Another who thinks the dictionary is definitive in law and social policy."

Please, point me in the direction of a law that defines "the intent to criminalize abortion" as rape. I'll wait.

Chandler Klebs said...

"It is also difficult to participate in one issue with a group of people who you know fight against you on another. In some cases, anti-LGBT rhetoric peppers the conversations at these events. Pro-lifers have this idea that the Right to Life trumps everything else, so any other conflicts are considered secondary. But the fact is, my equal rights and protection under the law are important to me, and to have people who claim to stand up for the rights of "everyone" (meaning, fetuses) while they have disapproval in their hearts and discrimination in their votes against people like me is not something I can easily get past. Thankfully, I am seeing more and more pro-LGBT pro-lifers these days." - Nate Sheets

I understand what Nate said. An example is when I agree with someone on the abortion issue, but then disagree on something such as animal rights, war, or guns. For me all issues of life and death are equally relevant. However I think that common ground on any one issue allows us to extend beyond that.

Speaksvolumes said...

What happened to your comment, Plum Dump?

"Plum Dumpling

I am waiting for you to refute the definition I provided. No more conversation until you do so.
'Nuh uh' is not an argument.

5:30 a.m., Tuesday Sept. 16"

I have no need to refute anything. You've done that yourself. All you've done is provided perfectly legitimate definition of rape, none of which includes "the attempt to criminalize abortion." Keep trying though. This is fun.

Lindsey Leigh Phillips said...

Since said embryo isn't a person, it looks like there's no problem (aside from being raped, which to you, isn't that big of a deal).

It would be funny to see you, with your almost unfathomable gall, tell a RAPE VICTIM she's in the wrong and she's "killing a person" and then watching you try to pick your teeth out of the gravel.

Your heart *might* be in the right place, but your brain sure as heck ain't tagging along.

There is no middle ground. Cure all of society's ills and there will be fewer abortions. Making abortion illegal will do jackshit for a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant.

So assuming you aren't an anti choice twat like plenty of the rabid womb nazis women have to deal with, your energy would be better spent working on fixing the problems you have some say in. Abortion (for anyone other than yourself) is not one of them.

Speaksvolumes said...

By that logic, you're a cancer.

Gaiuse Strome said...

Yeah. And that is YOUR logic.

I suggest you work on a better definition.

Speaksvolumes said...

Um...no. That's YOUR logic. You don't see the difference between a mole or a cancer cell and an unborn human being.

You're confusing parts with wholes. The zef is a unique entity that directs its own development from within. A mole or cancer cell is not going to grow into a mature human being (read: mature. Still a human being at ALL stages of development). All of the zefs parts work together for the survival of the whole organism.

Gaiuse Strome said...

Potential = actual is not an argument.

And you assume that every zef is a person simply because a nebulous potential exists

Speaksvolumes said...

Potential what? It's always a human being.

But if you want to argue that potential =/= actual, then explain health insurance to me. Why do you have a moral right to health insurance even though you're not sick? How about education? Do you have a moral right to it as a potential?

A potential X may be granted the same moral rights as an actual X in virtue of its potential if its potential generates an interest in such a moral right; that is, if possessing the moral right constitutes a benefit for the potential X and a denial of the moral right constitutes a harm.

Gaiuse Strome said...

Potential what? It's always a human being.

Nope, it's not a human being until it's complete and fully formed. You are looking at a blueprint and pretending that it's a skyscraper.

Why do you have a moral right to health insurance even though you're not sick?

Funny, you don't think that women should have a 'moral' right to abortion even though every pregnancy has the potential to kill and maim them.

Double standard much?

that is, if possessing the moral right constitutes a benefit for the potential X and a denial of the moral right constitutes a harm.


Except you have to establish first that zygotes are even moral beings, and then you have to establish that abortion is actual harm, and then you have to establish that denying women the right to their own bodies and lives if a lesser harm than denying the zef the right to the woman's body.

Speaksvolumes said...

It's not a human being? What is it?

I think women, like everyone else, has a moral right to health insurance. That doesn't include a special privilege for women to kill other human beings. Also, you completely evaded the question of WHY should you have health insurance as a moral right given it is only a potential that you might need it.

I don't need to establish that a zygote is a moral being. It only needs to be established that it is a human being, or even, as you've stated, a potential human being. Even if it is only a potential, it follows that moral rights can be conferred to it in that denial of those right will cause harm as a potential.

Gaiuse Strome said...

That doesn't include a special privilege for women to kill other human beings.

It's not a special privilege. Women are the ONLY people who get pregnant,and to force them to remain pregnant is to deny them their inalienable right to privacy, liberty, and yes, life.

Also, you completely evaded the question of WHY should you have health insurance as a moral right given it is only a potential that you might
need it.


Because it's a red herring. It makes sense to plan for the future, for potential disasters. Put money in the bank, etc. Build a bomb shelter.

What YOU are doing is attempting to treat the potential as if it is already the actual - by your logic, you should *already* be putting millions of dollars into paying for that heart bypass, since the *potential* to develop heart disease is exactly the same as having it.

I don't need to establish that a zygote is a moral being.

Yes, you do. Otherwise you are begging the question. Fallacy alert!

It only needs to be established that it is a human being, or even, as you've stated, a potential human being.


I'm a human being. I have moral worth. That doesn't give me a de facto right to occupy your body, leech it of resources, and threaten your life and health.

Speaksvolumes said...

You're making a special pleading argument for women to have special privileges and rights to kill other human beings because of their biology. Should men get special rights because of their biology, too? I thought we did away with that.

Health insurance is exactly that: treating the potential as if it is the actual. Not sure how you can't see that. It's a contingency plan in case you get sick. It's also considered a moral right for a potential.


No, I don't have to establish that a zef is a moral being. Plenty of immoral people out there, but I wouldn't deny them their moral right to having health insurance for any potential illness they might suffer. They're human beings; they have the moral right to health insurance. As a potential.

An unborn human being is a human being. Or a potential human being, in your words. As such, it has moral rights as a potential. Denying those rights will do harm in the potential. You don't have the right to kill it.

Gaiuse Strome said...

You're making a special pleading argument for women to have special privileges

If men could get pregnant, they would *also* have the right not to have their bodies exploited on behalf of another.

Look up the fallacy, you are the one that is special pleading for prenates - saying that unborn humans, and ONLY unborn humans, have the right to the body of another. tskt sk

Health insurance is exactly that: treating the potential as if it is the actual.

No, it isn't. Because if it was, you'd be paying for that triple heart bypass RIGHT NOW. tsk tsk

No, I don't have to establish that a zef is a moral being

Yes you do. Otherwise you are just making baseless assertions, something that you appear to be quite good at.

As such, it has moral rights as a potential.


Another baseless assertion. "moral rights' do not include occupying the body of another without consent,


Besides, since when does *potential* override actual? Why should something that only has potential override the needs, health and life of the actual?

Lindsey Leigh Phillips said...

Beatings will continue until morale improves!

Julie T. said...

I can't believe you went with ALBANY over me as your pansexual pro-life atheist voice. :P ;)

Crystal said...

Thank you so much for sharing your stories and insights. I am a Christian, and anti-abortion, and I don't believe that religion is the basis for the anti-abortion movement (as in, "The Bible says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.") I do believe that abortion is wrong because of the intrinsic value of human life (that's the simplified version; you have eloquently explained the same reasons I hold for being against abortion). And I am so sorry that Christians and others in the name of religion have disregarded, disrespected, and insulted you for your lifestyle or choice of faith. Our disagreement in those areas should have nothing to do with our respect for each other and our willingness to fight for life together.

Again, thank you for this insightful post.

Plum Dumpling said...

The author has not answered this question:
Why do you reject the RCC's position on sexuality as far as orgasm/gender is concerned but support their misogyny where a woman's fertility is concerned? I ask in all seriousness as one RC woman to another.

Plum Dumpling said...

The author has not answered this question. The author refuses to answer pertinent questions. The author has never given birth:

You are not permitted by general agreement to seize my body to do your will - for treasure or to benefit any 'person.'

If you break the social contract and seize or attempt to seize my body, I have the right to stop you by force - by hurting you or killing you.

Explain to me why being female erases those rights and agreements.

Abortion and contraception are human rights. Illegal abortion, sepsis and hemorrhage in childbirth are the three leading causes of maternal death worldwide.

Plum Dumpling said...

This is where this execrable essay begins. Notice that none of the authors have provided a substantive response to any question or information provided in rebuttal to their stance.:

Deanna:
I would define "pro-life" as the position that abortion, in general, ought to be illegal.
.........
I am PRO life so naturally I am PRO reproductive choice for women.

My Mother had an abortion because of financial hardship when it was illegal. She and my Dad decided three of us was all they could handle. We were 14, 12 and 10. My Mom could have died. I know a past President of NJ NOW whose Mother died of illegal abortion when she was 9 years old.

Mom was 37, working full time and doing IBEW work. Dad was intermittently crippled with a congenital form of arthritis. Another pregnancy would have been a serious social, financial and physical disruption for her and for our family. Most women who get an abortion already have children.

It is despicable to compel folks to give birth to children they cannot afford and/or do not want BY LAW. It is Nazi stuff.

If you are one of the "prolife" activists, I have questions for you.

My body and its contents belongs to (pick one):
1. You.
2. the State.
3. Me and my family.

My children belong with and to:
1. You.
2. the State.
3. Me and my family.

I look forward to your answers. I will tell you something right now. You Republican and/or authoritarian ghouls will not turn me and my daughters into baby farmed corpses like poor Mrs. Munoz. We vote.

ILLEGAL ABORTION and CHILDBIRTH (sepsis and hemorrhage) are the leading causes of maternal death worldwide. Fertility is serious business for women. Abortion/contraception is a human right.

lady_black said...

Human, yes. A human being, not so much. Human tissue, until viability.

m17l6s85 said...

I'll have to keep you in mind if/when we do a follow up. :)

Chalkdust said...

Deanna said:
I believed (and
still believe) the right to life does not include the right to use someone
else's body to survive. However, I also believe the right to life does include the right to not be killed,
and most abortions do actively
kill the unborn.
So if a pregnant person wanted to take Pitocin, a standard labor-inducing medication, at 16 weeks, in order to remove an unwanted fetus from her body, would you hold that she has a right to do that?

ockraz said...

newsflash: gun manufacturers say gun control is an unjust violation of a fundamental right too

ockraz said...

I don't think your argument makes good sense because it's ignoring the context. Maybe it's not your personal intent, but generally your argument is used as a kind of troll bait - except its used on a political stage rather than just the internet. "Here is a position that you should advocate for consistency's sake- which btw will make your side supremely unpopular if you do take it."

I'll pass.

You don't appreciate the scale of the moral injustice that we're facing as pro-lifers. Remember the scene in Lincoln when Thaddeus Stevens (the Tommy Lee Jones character) is being goaded to say that he thinks blacks are equal (of equal worth and deserving equal respect, etc.) with whites, rather than merely having an equal right to be free under the law? He didn't, despite believing it, because the opponents were just trying to get the door open to a discussion about voting rights and 'miscegenation' that could derail the 13th Amdt. He was concerned about the 4 million Americans who had no legal rights.

We have over a million innocent lives taken legally in the U.S. annually and 44 million globally. I'm not going to get side tracked by arguing about rape exceptions or what criminal penalty there is for procuring an abortion. We're in Stevens position and when the stakes are so huge, what doesn't make "good sense" is making the perfect the enemy of the good.

ockraz said...

"Woman is the fountain of all life and must be in charge of her own
fertility without coercion. How many peaches will you get if you harm
the tree?" That's forthright at least.

I am woman, vessel of life and bringer of death. I am Shiva the Creator/Destroyer!

Plum Dumpling said...

Kali Durge Namo Namah.

Plum Dumpling said...

Profound. /s

ockraz said...

10 months? What species are we talking about?

ockraz said...

Interesting - you're the same person who said it's a great regret of yours that you didn't abort. No one has ever been more a threat to your children than you.

Plum Dumpling said...

I am always astounded by the clairvoyant and telepathic ability of the average forced birth cultist.

ockraz said...

you're probably astounded by electricity too if you're surprised that people can read things you type on blogs :P
or are you now denying having written that?

ockraz said...

indeed- neither is worth mentioning: gun mfctr's & their concern about gun rights or ACOG and abortion rights

Purple Slurpy said...

Hi Ockraz

I'm being civil, and trying to understand where
your side is coming from.

On the one hand, you say I don't appreciate the "scale of the moral injustice" of abortion. Yet you are OK with not punishing the perpetrators of this moral injustice? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that something does not make sense there. And you don't seem to appreciate what might happen if you make laws that are inconsistent in its definition and punishment of murder. And you're right, I don't appreciate the moral magnitude. I don't think abortion is completely ethically neutral, but in context of other factors such as possibly rape or economic situation, I don't think aborting an early fetus ranks supreme.

I'm asking this question with the understanding that many of you would like to actually see abortion made illegal, and not just make it socially unacceptable. IF you are going to make something illegal, it becomes VERY important to appreciate how that law is going to affect people. And I think in that context, the question of how you should treat violators of the law become very relevant.


I'm sorry, but your way of thinking is extremely dogmatic and supremely short-sided. Occam would not approve : )

ockraz said...

and you're the one complaining about our hubris LOL

ockraz said...

Alright, I'll take your word that you're not trying to get us to commit to something damaging but are actually asking because you want to understand. Generally, that's not how this particular line of questioning has been used, though.

It's usually just a trap. If you say something too harsh you get painted as a cruel oppressor who'd throw sympathetic women in dungeons and if you say something too lenient then you must not really believe it's murder and are guilty of hypocrisy or at minimum irresponsible hyperbole.

I'll go through it point by point in good faith. (It'll take a bit.)

Purple Slurpy said...

Thanks, my whole position is that abortion is not completely ethically neutral, but must be considered in conjunction with lots of other factors. If you make it into law, you also need to consider how you're going to enforce it. Lax enforcement yet no legal means of obtaining an abortion would seem to spell disaster to me...

Plum Dumpling said...

Say something interesting. ho hum.

Plum Dumpling said...

" ... who said "it's a great regret of yours that you didn't abort."

....................
You argue by misquotation. How tacky. Point to where I said precisely that.

Gaiuse Strome said...

In the USA, miscarriages are already treated with suspicion, and some women are unlucky enough to be jailed:

http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/main/publications/articles_and_reports/


Really not that far of a leap to classify abortion as murder, and investigate every miscarriage as a crime scene.

Gaiuse Strome said...

Here is another reason that it is not legal to *force* treatment on people, even if it could 'save' their lives:

https://ca.celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-news/report--joan-rivers-s-personal-doctor-began-biopsy--took-selfie-010531813.html

Joan Rivers died because her doctor made a mistake, and he made a mistake because he performed an un-authorized biopsy on her, which eventually killed her.

Jennifer Starr said...

Works for me.

Gaiuse Strome said...

http://www.today.com/parents/doctors-say-full-term-pregnancy-10-months-I550453

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I'm an RC woman too and I don't think they are misogynistic where a woman's fertility is concerned. Quite the opposite. The church teaches that both men and women should respect their fertility, not thwart it, subvert it, or try to destroy it.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Just because you dislike his very relevant analogy does not mean it is therefore uninteresting.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

So, "thou shalt not kill" was just a suggestion, not a command? Funny. That's not what my Bible says.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

If you believe that it is all right to kill unborn children -- the ones whom God knits together in their mother's wombs -- then you are not pro-life in all respects. You are pro-life in one respect -- that of the mother.

Gaiuse Strome said...

It's 'thou shalt not murder' actually.


God was totally cool with genocide and baby killing, as long as it was of non-believers.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I've been pregnant seven times. I've had two miscarriages. One of my pregnancies was a crisis pregnancy as it came at a time when I was broke and unemployed. I still agree with you and vehemently disagree with Plum Dumpling. Abortion does not cure mental illness. In fact it exacerbates the problem. Also, a recent study from Finland showed that the suicide rate among women who had abortions was six times higher than that of women who had given birth in the prior year and double that of women who had miscarriages (source: http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/5/459.full)

Plum Dumpling said...

I am for individual women running their own sexual/family lives without coercion.
I oppose legislatures practicing medicine.
I oppose anyone who wishes to makes women's sexual/family lives subject to public and/or religious review.
You have a rich full fantasy life. Think about other things. You will feel better.

Plum Dumpling said...

What do you eat?

Jennifer Starr said...

What if they don't want their fertility?

Plum Dumpling said...

The RCC teaches a lot of cockamamey stuff about sexuality and biology. This has been the result at the link.
http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/cahirodoherty/Mass-grave-of-up-to-800-dead-babies-exposed-in-County-Galway-.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645870/Mass-grave-contains-bodies-800-babies-site-Irish-home-unmarried-mothers.html

Plum Dumpling said...

There is a difference between his vagina and my gun. Ask someone to give you 'the talk.'

Speaksvolumes said...

Sterilization.

Kristin said...

One cannot be pro-life in all ways if you're pro-people choosing to kill the unborn. Pro-lifers are pro-life of the woman, as many women regret their abortions and become suicidal, and "safe and legal" abortions kill and hurt women as well. You're pro-death. Pro-life liberals are pro-life in all ways.

Speaksvolumes said...

I care. Plenty of people do. Killing people is a societal issue, not just a personal one. A woman's body is involved and so is an unborn human being's body.

Speaksvolumes said...

How does it follow that a human being that is unwanted can be killed?

Plum Dumpling said...

I am for individual women running their own sexual/family lives without coercion.
I oppose legislatures practicing medicine.
I oppose anyone who wishes to makes women's sexual/family lives subject to public and/or religious review.

Jennifer Starr said...

I'm good with contraception, thanks.

Speaksvolumes said...

Wonderful. Just accept your responsibility as an adult that contraception may fail and killing another human being is not a way to absolve yourself of said responsibility. Kthxbye.

Kristin said...

So am I. It's just that killing unborn children should not be protected by that. Just like you would say killing born children is not a matter of women running their own sexual/family lives.

Purple Slurpy said...

>> If you believe that it is all right to kill unborn children -- the ones whom God knits together in their mother's wombs

I'm just trying to understand. Abortion is wrong because the fetuses are god's personal creation. Does god also cause miscarriages? If so, why is it OK when god decides to terminate a pregnancy?

Plum Dumpling said...

I think you could use some information. Might help with your odd persistent fantasies of child murder.
If you know anyone who is killing children, call the cops. It is your duty.
http://childdevelopmentinfo.com/child-development/normaldevelopment/

http://faculty.washington.edu/wtalbott/phil102/tr11-27.htm

ockraz said...

and you instantly become suicidal before you even have a pregnancy test or miss a period because... magic :P

ockraz said...

NAPW has same leadership as RHRC. It's not a legitimate human rights group.

ockraz said...

I don't see the point. Why should I go through your digital detritus given that you aren't denying you said it. It wouldn't even be proof of your having lied. Are you denying you wrote that you regret not aborting or aren't you?

ockraz said...

LOL- let's see how long this pointless thread becomes as each of us 'gets the last word' and adds nothing

Plum Dumpling said...

If you assert it, you must support your assertion.
If you cannot support your assertion, you lose.
And it becomes clear you lied for effect.

Plum Dumpling said...

I am sharing, discussing, teaching, stomping trolls and having a good time.
Do you often spend time in pointless activities? I try to avoid the occasion of pointless activities.
Maybe you should leave and find something to do that amuses you.

Plum Dumpling said...

Anthropologically, Homo sapiens has three strategies for dealing with unwanted reproduction (births): contraception, abortion and
infanticide. All three are practiced in every culture worldwide historically and currently.

Those who restrict contraception and abortion make infanticide, child abandonment/abuse and maternal mortality inevitable. We have many in vitro examples of this but the one that troubles me the most at the moment is this example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

There is nothing moral about your position if your position is controlling women's reproductive choices by law. Illegal abortion and sepsis and hemorrhage in childbirth are the three leading causes of maternal death worldwide. Women have blood in the game. Abortion and contraception are human rights.

Obviously I have thought a great deal more about this than you have. YOU do not occupy the moral high ground.

Plum Dumpling said...

No thank you. I see no reason to maim myself to please forced birth cultists.
I will use contraception. If I become pregnant, I will gestate or abort as I see fit.

Plum Dumpling said...

An other human being can get me a cup of coffee. Or stand behind me in the checkout line at MickeyD's. Words have meaning.

Plum Dumpling said...

Do not pretend all Christians and all religious folk are opposed to abortion. That is a stone lie. Lying is a sin.

Plum Dumpling said...

Do you think this 13 year old should have been able to get an abortion?
http://www.care2.com/causes/13-year-old-performs-abortion-at-home-time-to-rethink-parental-notification-laws.html

Jennifer Starr said...

It's funny how you think that you get to make requests of me.

Russell Crawford said...

The intent of the pro life movement is to murder born people in an effort to force the birth of fetuses. They have a choice, they can save innocent born babies or they can let the babies die and save fetuses instead. The pro life movement lets innocent born life die. ----- intentionally-----

Russell Crawford said...

You need to look at the number of babies born during the pro choice period compared to the number of babies born during the pro life period. There has not been a decrease in births, there has been an increase in births.
During the pro life period there was a decrease in life by millions of lost babies. Pro lifers have in fact been the ones that caused a multimillion decrease in babies. http://naturalabortionlaws.com/?p=79

In addition pro lifers intentionally murder born babies to save fetuses.

Gaiuse Strome said...

Yeah. And PL organizations are.

I bet you also distrust the UN?

lady_black said...

I didn't say human being. But even if it is a human being, a human being doesn't have a right to reside inside the body of another human being and use the organs of another human being for his benefit.

lady_black said...

Then dis-involve the woman's body. The fetus has no right to it! That is what an abortion does. It removes an unwanted human from the body of a woman who doesn't want it there.

Russell Crawford said...

Please give an example of a pro choice killing a person.

Russell Crawford said...

The scientific proof is that you have a choice, you can save an innocent born baby or you can let that baby die and save a fetus instead. Pro lifers choose to let babies die in an effort to save fetuses.

Russell Crawford said...

Abortion takes the life of a "fetus" not a human. There are structural differences in the fetus and a human.
That would not be a big deal except for the fact that you must kill a baby to save a fetus.

Kristin said...

Haha, you can't assume I haven't thought much abut it. I have debated this issue for years. What you don't understand is that science does tell us that the unborn are individual living human beings just like us. It's a stage of development just like being a toddler, teenager etc. Killing one of them is the same as killing one of us. The you that is here right here right now, was put in place at conception. Killing a human being will never be a "reproductive choice" no matter how much you'd like to think that.

The penalty would be what it was back when it was illegal/ the doctors get penalized instead of the woman/looking at what the penalties are for killing newborns.

Women need actual help instead of abortions. Abortions don't solve anything, they just throw the woman back into the same situation she was in before she had the abortion. They need people telling them of their options more, support for those other options, more of those social safety net options, better sex ed, contraception etc. Women still die from safe and legal abortions and the rate didn't change once it was legalized. The way is not to say abortion is ok but to solve the ACTUAL problems. Women deserve better than people refusing to actually help them by giving them the band-aid solution that is abortion. I know you think you occupy the moral ground, but you do not. There are a lot of things you are probably unaware of.

Gaiuse Strome said...

The penalty would be what it was back when it was illegal/ the doctors
get penalized instead of the woman/looking at what the penalties are for
killing newborns.



And what if the woman does it herself? Herbs? Coathanger? Abortion pill ordered online?

j.lup said...

I find it helpful in these debates to grant the forced-birthers all their moral assertions so that the debate doesn't get side-tracked by pointless discussions about personhood and what constitutes 'life'. Sure, let's say that a zygote-embryo-fetus is a human being and a person (and I happen to think that there should be extra punishment for assaulting or killing a pregnant woman in such a way that also harms or kills the fetus inside her), but the abortion-permissibility question always comes down to beliefs about bodily autonomy and consent, and the principle I've seen you mention elsewhere: No person has the right to live inside another person's body without that person's ongoing consent, full stop.

Plum Dumpling said...

"What you don't understand is that science does tell us that the unborn are individual living human beings just like us."

...............

Citation needed. In fact, science is still out on the human being question.

Even if I grant human being status to the fetus for arguments sake- no human being is entitled to even one drop of my blood by law though he may die.

You want to create special rights for the fetus that no other human being possesses AT MY EXPENSE. A fetus can have only rights taken FROM ME.

You are not permitted by general agreement to seize my body to do your will - for treasure or to benefit any 'person.'

If you break the social contract and seize or attempt to seize my body, I have the right to stop you by force - by hurting you or killing you.

Explain to me why being female erases those rights and agreements.

lady_black said...

Yes, I always make it clear that I don't share their opinion about fetal personhood, but allow them the benefit of assuming that the fetus IS a "person" because that isn't the real question, is it? I have children who are human and persons. I don't owe them access to any of my body tissues without consent, PERIOD. The fetal version of my children had no "rights" that they don't currently enjoy. It's imply a matter that my body, ALL of it, is the only thing no one else can ever take from me, without full-out enslavement. So I guard my rights very jealously. The anti-choicers don't really believe that "persons" have the right to their bodily tissues, either. At least I haven't seen a mass movement of BS artists signing up on lists to be living donors for those who would die without their organs and tissues. Of course, they have every right to decline to do that. I just wish they would grant the rest of us the same privilege.

Plum Dumpling said...

There were no penalties for aborting yourself when it was illegal. And there were no penalties for doctors. There were penalties for those who did underground abortions.


YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION. Should the 13 year old who aborted with the pencil, the one with the 30 year old BF, have been able to get an abortion.


HOW ABOUT THE 12 YEAR OLD BELOW?

Plum Dumpling said...

Arguendo; We cannot and must not base public health law on your sad-feelies-for-fetus.

Abortion was performed by midwives and advertised in the paper in Colonial America.

Abortion was illegal in America for a fairly brief period. I should look it up for exactly how long.

So many women died and were maimed when abortion was illegal, that Clergy organized abortion referral services so women could find safe abortions and defiantly advertised such referral service in the New York Times. Rest in peace, Reverend Moody.

Do not try to tell me that illegal abortion was not a problem or not common. My Mother and my Sister had illegal abortions.

I will believe that forced birth cultists like you are sane and caring when your movement supports and works for the things that really reduce abortion - contraception, sex education and a strong social safety net for women and their children.

Germaine Greer:
"Too many women are forced to abort by poverty, by their menfolk, by their parents ... A choice is only possible if there are genuine alternatives."

Plum Dumpling said...

You did not answer my question. Both my Mother and my Sister had illegal abortions. What should have been their punishment?

Kristin said...

From Dr. Bernard Nathanson of NARAL:
"We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law."

the actual statistics showing that legalized abortion didn't change the rate of women dying

http://liveactionnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Screen-Shot-2012-11-03-at-12.17.22-AM.png

but if you're going to talk like that I shouldn't waste my time on you anyway.

Plum Dumpling said...

SweetStuff, I have miscarried and given birth. Have you? Why assume I need feel good films about the process of reproduction?

Plum Dumpling said...

Bernard Nathanson supposedly filmed an abortion that he did on his mistress. And then he sold the film and dined out on speaking engagements for years and years
This is the person of character and reputation you present to support your arguments?
Bwha ha ha ha ha ha. Gasp. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Kristin said...

BAHAHAHA ok you are a troll. I gave you tons of science quotes saying it is of course a human being because you said citations needed. I shouldn't feed you though. Bye bye.

Gaiuse Strome said...

So? That proves nothing. And the science just says that human development begins at fertilization...nothing about personhood, which is what human being is a synonym for

Jennifer Starr said...

This is also the man who made the hoax known as 'The Silent Scream'. This is a man you want me to take seriously?

Jennifer Starr said...

Tons of quotes, none which answers the question that Plum Dumpling asked.

Russell Crawford said...

You understand that none of the sources you are quoting are saying what you imply. They all, each and every one, agree with me that life is a continuous process and only zygotes that can be proved to have the correct phenotype are human. Therefore only thirty percent of zygotes will become human life.

j.lup said...

Religious extremists actually oppose things like blood transfusions and organ donation; they believe that human suffering is God-ordained and good for the soul.

Plum Dumpling said...

No. You gave me the pap they feed the ignorant and new Mothers. Several of your quotes talk about the 'developing' fetus. The genotype must be fully expressed in the phenotype or there is no human being.

This is the form scholarly papers take below. As you can see, REAL SCIENTISTS AND BIOETHICISTS ARE STILL IN DEBATE about when a fetus becomes a human being.

J Med Ethics. 1985 Dec;11(4):198-204.
The brain-life theory: towards a consistent biological definition of humanness.
Goldenring JM.
Abstract
This paper suggests that medically the term a 'human being' should be defined by the presence of an active human brain. The brain is the only unique and irreplaceable organ in the human body, as the orchestrator of all organ systems and the seat of personality. Thus, the presence or absence of brain life truly defines the presence or absence of human life in the medical sense. When viewed in this way, human life may be seen as a continuous spectrum between the onset of brain life in utero (eight weeks gestation), until the occurrence of brain death. At any point human tissue or organ systems may be present, but without the presence of a functional human brain, these do not constitute a 'human being', at least in a medical sense. The implications of this theory for various ethical concerns such as in vitro fertilisation and abortion are discussed. This theory is the most consistent possible for the definition of a human being with no contradictions inherent. However, having a good theory of definition of a 'human being' does not necessarily solve the ethical problems discussed herein.

PMID: 4078859 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC1375210 Free PMC Article

Plum Dumpling said...

Third request for an answer to my question. And I am the troll?
Question: Both my Mother and my Sister had illegal abortions. What should have been their punishment?

Plum Dumpling said...

Thank you, Russell Crawford. The OP does not even possess grade school knowledge of science.

Russell Crawford said...

Kristin, you are a murderer. You have a choice, you can save innocent born babies or you can choose to let them die and attempt to save a fetus instead. Your choice is to let innocent babies die. Because you claim to save babies, but don't, you are committing "murder by omission", a vile act. You will eventually understand that you have not been saving life, but causing death. I hope you will be able to live with yourself.

lady_black said...

Never let them forget. Particularly THIS one.

lady_black said...

Yeah. Wouldn't that be "thwarting" it, as Joanna says? I freely admit that sterilization does thwart fertility, and for that I'm eternally grateful.

lady_black said...

I DON'T "accept" that and no you DON'T get to dictate to me about what my responsibility is.

lady_black said...

"The unborn person" isn't "asking" for anything, nor can it "ask" for anything. It has no viewpoint. I do.

Plum Dumpling said...

Agree. This one needs special attention.

expect_resistance said...

I grew up Catholic and am now an ex-Catholic. I feel the Catholic Church is a sexist anti woman cult.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 414   Newer› Newest»