Pages

Monday, September 29, 2014

The feminist movement cannot afford to ignore pro-life concerns

Emma Watson at the United Nations, via CBS News
[Today's guest post by Victoria Godwin is part of our paid blogging program.]

Emma Watson. Who doesn’t love her? Emma Watson seems to be strong lady who has carried herself with poise and grace even whilst being in the spotlight. I love her acting, applaud her drive to get her university degree, and truly respect her quest to make a difference in this world by serving as the U.N. Women Goodwill Ambassador. Needless to say, she has certainly always been at the top of my “celebrity girl crush” list! So when I started listening to her HeForShe speech at the U.N. headquarters, I was very excited and was nodding enthusiastically (watch/read the transcript here). But when she said the line, “…I should be able to make decisions about my own body,” my heart and excitement plummeted.

Now, in theory, that line could have many innocuous meanings. Decisions about one's body might include, for instance, the decision to abstain from sex until you feel you are readya serious international concern, given the startling number of child marriages. It might also refer to decisions about contraception, confidential mental health treatment, and even what clothing to wear. But in practice, "decisions about my body" is coded language for the dismemberment of unborn children.

Assuming she is referring to the legal right to abortion, I’m going to also assume that she does not realize that over 200 million girls are missing in the world due to legal abortion and infanticide, a phenomenon explored in depth in Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn’s Half the Sky. I’m not here to lecture you all on how I feel about the legality of abortion, but I firmly believe that gender equality can only be reached if we address what is occurring worldwide: prenatal sex-selection and female infanticide. Gender
equality begins at conception, but on this, Ms. Watson not only has missed the mark, but has ignored what the anti-abortion feminists have been fighting for for years.

As Emma points out later in her speech, “…not all women have received the same rights that I have. In fact, statistically, very few have been." However, this statement doesn’t necessarily only cover inequalities in wages, education, and general respect for women. This especially rings true in countries such as China and India, whose regional birth sex ratios can reach discrepancies of ~120+ male births for every 100 female births. This skewed ratio of male to female births is not just seen in countries such as India and China where in some parts cultural traditions have made it preferable to have male children; it is seen in the US and the UK as well. Sex-selective abortion is currently illegal in the United Kingdom, where Emma calls home. Despite its illegality, studies have discovered a skewed birth sex ratio among the second children of some immigrant families in the UK. It is currently estimated that between 1,400 and 4,700 girls are missing from the UK.

On the other end, sex-selective abortion is legal in the majority of the states in the US, where a woman can get an abortion on-demand and for any reason. Unfortunately, prenatal gender discrimination is evident in the US. Forms of gender preference were shown in a 2011 Gallup poll where 40% of Americans reported that they would prefer a boy if only allowed one child, in contrast to the 28% who would prefer a girl, statistics that are shockingly similar to those found in 1941. This opens the door wide to sex-selective abortions that are still legal in 42 states. Also in the US, parents are allowed to choose embryos by sex through in vitro fertilization, an option that 40% of Americans believe is appropriate. This suggests once again that gender preference is a serious issue that ought to be addressed as IVF technology advances and abortion remains on-demand.

Now that being said, do I think that making sex-selective abortion and IVF sex selection illegal is (by itself) going to fix this issue? No, it’s much more complex than that, as shown by attempts to restrict sex-selective abortions in India. But after listening to Emma’s speech, I was left wondering why the “hard questions” like sex-selective abortion and female infanticide are frequently left out of feminist discussions. While her efforts are indeed commendable, discussions on the gender wage gap and gender stereotypes tend to be much more palatable than discussing why being a girl can mean a death sentence. Most of all, I want to see more “nontraditional” feministsnamely men and pro-lifersstep up, get involved, and talk about these uncomfortable issues and to push the boundaries of what it means to be a feminist. Using Emma’s words, “If not me, who? If not now, when?”

At the end of the speech, Emma invites men to participate in the fight for female equality. But in her comment alluding to abortion rights, she has perhaps inadvertently excluded anti-abortion feminists from this “HeForShe” discussion for gender equality, exactly the opposite of what she claims her goal is: a united front. My fellow anti-abortion feminists and I desire the same things that Emma Watson states in her address. We fight for maternity leave, we fight to close the wage gap, we volunteer our time at domestic abuse shelters and pregnancy centers, and we spread awareness about gender discrimination across the world and close to home. We want females to have the same rights as males; but first, we have to let them be born.

683 comments:

1 – 200 of 683   Newer›   Newest»
Crystal Kupper said...

Your last sentence says it all.

someone45 said...

So you want to give all the rights to the unborn ZEFs that would be born female but take away all the rights from the actual living woman... Makes no sense.

I think I agree with Emma more- I should be able to make whatever choices I want about my body.

bluebeard cattown said...

Sex selective abortion exists because of institutionalized misogyny. And that misogyny exists because for thousands of years women have been treated like livestock - baby makers and home makers.

disastergirl4 said...

I agree completely. That's why we need to include pro-life feminists in the discussion...to draw attention to the reasons why sex-selective abortion exists. Pro-choice feminists have tended to stray from the topic as they are afraid it goes too far into the realm of pro-lifers...we need to change that.
-Victoria

bluebeard cattown said...

Relegating women to second class status by forcing them to remain pregnant against their will will only turn back the clock on women's rights.

Mungling said...

Turning back the clock on women's rights... as opposed to stripping the right to life of some women because they aren't old enough?

bluebeard cattown said...

Women are born.

EdinburghEye said...

When a woman says "I should be able to make decisions about her body", and a prolifer screeches "SHE WANTS TO DISMEMBER UNBORN CHILDREN!" I'm minded to point out that straw men make for poor arguments.


The idea the prolife movement tries to promote, that sex-selective abortion, killing girl-babies and girl-children, and murdering young women, is somehow all going to be prevented by forced pregnancy, is so absurd and so disgusting that it is really not worth disputing.

EdinburghEye said...

It does indeed: a perfect summary of the prolife notion that it really doesn't matter if girls are killed once they're born - it only matters that the law of the land can force girls and young women through pregnancy and childbirth against their will. Dead babies, dead girls, dead women - none of these matter to the prolife movement, only forced pregnancy.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

"Turning back the clock on women's rights... as opposed to stripping the right to life of some females because they aren't old enough?"

JoAnna Wahlund said...

"it really doesn't matter if girls are killed once they're born" -


Can you please quote the portion of the post where the author makes that assertion? I can't seem to find it.

EdinburghEye said...

There are no prolife feminists.
If you're in favour of forcing girls and women to give birth against their will, and think that this will somehow ensure sex-selective killing of babies won't happen, then you are neither a feminist ....nor a clear thinker.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

As opposed to someone who is in favor of killing unborn females simply because they are female? Why do you support that?

EdinburghEye said...

Oh, I'm sorry: was the writer of the article in favour of saving the lives of girls once they are born? I thought the writer was only asserting support for forced pregnancy & denial of safe legal abortion, and of course ignoring that sex-selective abortion is a relatively minor aspect of the selective killing of girls and young women.

A part of which, of course, is the denial of contraception and safe legal abortions to girls too young to give birth safely; but prolifers are never concerned about allowing those girls the basic human right of abortion.

EdinburghEye said...

Why do you support killing girls once they're born?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Did you even read the article? She addressed your point.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I don't. I think everyone has an equal right to life.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Hm, is there a reason why you're ignoring my very clear question? Here it is again: "Can you please quote the portion of the post where the author makes that assertion? I can't seem to find it."

If you still won't answer it, it must be because you're lying. I wonder why you have to lie to defend your position?

Kelsey said...

Pointing out someone's coded language =/= straw man.

Mungling said...

Biologically speaking (and ignoring the more complex issue of gender identity), you're a woman or man the moment you're conceived. The cervix isn't a magic wand. The nature of a person one day before birth is essentially the same as one day after. To believe that birth bestows the property of womanhood would be to think otherwise. I suppose you *could* think otherwise, but there would be no scientific basis for that assessment (and every reason to disagree).

bluebeard cattown said...

No mind = no personhood.

Unborn humans are only potential people. And even if they were women from conception, that would not give them the right to lay claim to the bodies of other women in the name of women's rights.

bluebeard cattown said...

You oppose all abortion, and even some forms of contraception, so why does it matter?

bluebeard cattown said...

Women will always die from pregnancy. Even life of mother exceptions won't prevent this. By banning abortion you effectively deny women the right to life.

EdinburghEye said...

Oh good, I'm glad, JoAnna: so you support safe legal access to abortion for every girl and women who needs it, since we all have an equal right to life.

Oh, you wanted an answer? I thought it was a rhetorical question intended to smear me, not a serious invitation to debate.

EdinburghEye said...

Is there a reason you're trying to pretend there's a section of the post where the author says she's interested in saving girl babies, girl children, and young woman? I can't seem to find it.

If you won't cite that section, but your only weapon is to accuse me of lying because I note that girls and young women deserve to live, I wonder why you can't defend your position except by rhetorical attacks on my ethics?

EdinburghEye said...

Did you even read the article? Evidently not. She nowhere addressed this point. Are you getting paid to defend it, by the same generous donor who paid her to write it?

EdinburghEye said...

Claiming that a woman's right to make decisions about her own body means she's really talking about dismembering babies is a straw man, dear.

bluebeard cattown said...

Whatever your thoughts about the status of the pre-born, it's abundantly
clear that they are alive (or else they wouldn't be growing), they have
a gender (as determined by their chromosomes) and that they are actual
(as in they exist, or else you wouldn't need the abortion in the first
place).


I am all that, that doesn't mean that I have a right to other women's bodies in the name of feminism.

If you think that ALL of a woman's rights are the ability to procure an
abortion then I think you need to expand your concept of human rights.



Forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will can:


kill her
violates her bodily rights
can cost her her job, money (hospital bills that I don't see pro-lifers offering to pay for)
her health
her home
her right to self-determination (forced pregnancy chooses reproduction for women)
her right to privacy


So yeah, you deny women just about every right if you force them to remain pregnant against their will. And lets not kid yourself, a large contingent of pro-life supports forced pregnancy in the case of rape, which is essentially gestational slavery. And if the woman dies from the pregnancy, you have condemned her to death for the crime of being born with a uterus.



Forced birth is NOT supportive of women's rights, not by a long shot.

bluebeard cattown said...

But in practice, "decisions about my body" is coded language for the dismemberment of unborn children.


Yeah, strawman and appeal to emotion fallacy. Women procure abortions not because they are malicious socipaths who want to 'dismember' innocent unborn babies, they procure abortions because they do not want to be pregnant.


I'd rather kill myself than be forced to give birth. I couldn't handle a violation of my bodily autonomy. But hey, if it makes you feel better to imagine that I just want to dismember unborn children, go ahead, knock yourself out.

Russell Crawford said...

Women should not be forced to give birth for any reason. Taking away a woman's autonomy with regard to sex selection will ensure that forced birth will continue. The way to stop forced abortion is to make laws that enforce autonomy.

Russell Crawford said...

It has been established that you are in favor of killing born girls to save fetuses. so your point is invalid.

Russell Crawford said...

Do you understand that if you save a female fetus just to let her die later, you have accomplished nothing.

Mungling said...

A few thoughts...

1) The no-mind = no person hood argument has always fascinated me. The concept of personhood is subjective and not objective; philosophical and not scientific. In other words, its personal, and I'm not entirely sure why one should be able to impose that vision of personhood on other people, especially when the lack of personhood can have such drastic consequences for the nonperson.
2) Every time someone has tried to deny personhood based on some arbitrary characteristic (race, sex, religion, etc.) they have ended up on the wrong side of history. I'm not entirely sure why personhood based on age will be any different.
3) If cognitive function is the measure of personhood, does that make born children less of a person than an adult? Are the mentally challenged less of a person then everyone else? Cognitive function exists on a continuum, not as binary function. Perhaps you might argue for a threshold model, whereby those individuals who exist above a certain threshold of cognitive function achieve personhood. Who gets to set the threshold? Why? How could that be determined?
4) If was sent into a deep, dreamless sleep where I demonstrated minimal cognitive function would I cease to be a person? Scary thought.
5) If I were to concede this point, you would be correct in saying that personhood does not begin at conception but you wouldn't be able to beg personhood. Appreciable mental functions begin well before that.

bluebeard cattown said...

The cognitively disabled still have a mind.

And if your "dreamless sleep" = absence of the brainwaves associated with sentience, then you are for all intents and purposes brain dead.

Russell Crawford said...

There are so many scientific errors in your post that it is not worth a reply.

Julie said...

Whenever someone says that something is so (insert your adjective: obvious, disgusting, absurd, etc) that it is really not worth disputing, I know that person hasn't thought through that idea and is therefore unable to dispute it.

Mungling said...

As for your second objection (that they don't have a right to lay claim to the bodies of other women), I'm not sold on your argument. We readily accept the fact that an born child can lay claim to the body of its mother. Consider: a mother and her child get stranded on an island. The mother is well fed, but there is nothing for her child to eat. The only source of nutrients is mother's breast milk. Would it be moral for that mother to withhold breast milk from the starving child when the mother can readily provide it? Most of would say no; human beings have an obligation towards helping one another.

bluebeard cattown said...

A born child can't force its mother to breathe, eat or process wastes for it.

Kelsey said...

Are you suggesting that she's actually talking about child marriage or one of the other alternatives mentioned in the article?

Kelsey said...

It's not a question of your motivation. Abortion involves dismemberment whether you want it to or not. Facts are facts.

Kelsey said...

"My fellow anti-abortion feminists and I desire the same things that Emma
Watson states in her address. We fight for maternity leave, we fight
to close the wage gap, we volunteer our time at domestic abuse shelters
and pregnancy centers, and we spread awareness about gender
discrimination across the world and close to home."

bluebeard cattown said...

Except you did not word it that way. You specifically said that it is used as a code word to dismember fetuses, as if THAT was the goal.

And in many first trimester abortions, it is evicted whole.

"Women abort because they want to kill" was your implied meaning. Dismemberment just adds more flavour to it.

Mungling said...

Well that's disappointing Russell, considering I make exactly three scientific statements.

I claim that cognition exists on a continuum, which is readily attest-able. The way your brain works isn't the same as the way a child's brain works.

I claim that appreciable mental function begins before birth. Again, readily attest-able. Common sense should dictate that exiting the mother isn't a switch that turns on the mother's brain.

I made a comparison between sleep and a lack of cognitive function. OK... you've got me. Bad example. Reduced function isn't the same as no function. Although based on the level of cognition you require for personhood that may still apply.

bluebeard cattown said...

Prior to 25 weeks, the fetus is utterly incapable of sentience.

Mungling said...

Just for the sake of clarity, are you suggesting that no person has a mind before they are born, or that at some point in development, cognitive function develops to the point where one obtains a mind? Unrelated to your post, I'm just trying to make sure I properly understand your argument.

bluebeard cattown said...

Consciousness arises from the thalamus and the cortex. Neither are properly functional prior to 25 weeks. The capacity for consciousness does not exist.

Now, fetuses are never awake whilst in utero. They are sedated and anaesthetized. They don't wake up until they breathe in air. But if development is normal, they will attain the capacity for sentience at 25-30 weeks.

Anne Hijme said...

The odds of dying from pregnancy is less then 1% in USA. You are more likely to die from a plane accident. It isn't killing women to give birth. Also many pro-lifers have their 'exception for life threatening situations and rape/incest' So will you argue reasonable with someone who has those exceptions or are you just going to pretend you have a case that we wish to kill born females.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Why does it matter that unborn females are being killed simply due to their sex? Wow, what a prime example of misogyny.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Women die from abortion too (but I suppose you think those are acceptable losses, given that those of your ilk oppose safety standards for abortion facilities), and abortion is almost always 100% fatal to the child involved.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I don't support abortion, because it robs innocent human beings of their right to life. It's an honest question seeking an honest answer. Given that you are unable to provide one, that tells me all I need to know about your viewpoints.

bluebeard cattown said...

The inalienable right to life is not based on percentages. Its based on damage done.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Sure I can. It's her last paragraph: "My fellow anti-abortion feminists and I desire the same things that Emma Watson states in her address. We fight for maternity leave, we fight to close the wage gap, we volunteer our time at domestic abuse shelters and pregnancy centers, and we spread awareness about gender discrimination across the world and close to home. We want females to have the same rights as males; but first, we have to let them be born."

bluebeard cattown said...

Forced birth robs women of their lives, health, and bodily autonomy.
However, you probably don't think that women are innocent, even rape victims dont deserve the right to their lives or bodies.

EdinburghEye said...

Whenever a prolifer claims that human rights activist just haven't thought through our opposition to forced pregnancy and therefore aren't able to dispute your grosser ideas, I know that the prolifer has no idea how to defend those ideas themselves...

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I wish I was getting paid to defend the unborn! Sadly, at this point, it's just a cause to which I volunteer my time. But it's quite obvious you did not read her article. Why don't you do so, and then you can respond to her actual points instead of offering incoherent, nonsensical ramblings?

EdinburghEye said...

No, I think she's talking about a girl or a woman's right to decide for herself when and if to get pregnant and have a baby.

It's prolifer strawmanning to equate a woman's basic human right to choose with "dismembering babies".

EdinburghEye said...

So in your view, once a girl is old enough to be made pregnant, she is no longer "innocent".

I take it you support child marriage, too.

EdinburghEye said...

"I wish I was getting paid to defend the unborn!"



I wish you were too! Instead, you're just attacking girls and women, which obviously does nothing to defend the unborn or anyone else either...

bluebeard cattown said...

PC does not believe in forcing women to endanger their lives. You, however, do.

bluebeard cattown said...

I'm asking you that, actually.

The sex selective abortion ban is simply used as a tactic to ban all abortion. And it is deeply racist against Asian women.

Anne Hijme said...

If that is the case, then should we stop all people from driving cars because someone may die to that, which is much more likely then dying from pregnancy?

Also you ignored part of statement there are prolifers who are for the abortions in case of life threatening reasons, rape, and/or incest. which makes your argument not apply to them since it wouldn't kill women because if it would they could have their abortion.

bluebeard cattown said...

1) not every death from pregnancy can be accurately predicted or prevented. An abortion will not help a woman who dies after birth from blood loss.

2) we don't force people to put life and limb on the line to preserve the lives of others

deltaflute said...

It would be if the law applied only to Asian people, but it applies to all people. While it's common for Asian people to prefer boys, it is also common for Caucasians to prefer "having one of each." Speaking from personal experience, it gets rather annoying to have people ask if I was disappointed about having a second boy or ask if I'm going to try to have a girl. Sex selection and gender preference is not something that only Asian people do.

Russell Crawford said...

"Well that's disappointing Russell, considering I make exactly three scientific statements."

Well your statements can't be supported. They are really just opinions. The nature of the fetus is different from the nature of a fetus 10 seconds after birth. The fetus is structurally different from the baby that it becomes.

"I claim that cognition exists on a continuum, which is readily attest-able. The way your brain works isn't the same as the way a child's brain works."

The cognition that exists in the fetus is different from the cognition of the baby after birth. The brain of the fetus must have expressed the capability of transformation to a human brain. Those changes would include cognitive changes that control the breathing, eyesight, heart, digestive system and all other functions that change at birth.



"I claim that appreciable mental function begins before birth."

The metal functions before birth are fetal functions, those after birth are human functions.

"Again, readily attest-able. Common sense should dictate that exiting the mother isn't a switch that turns on the mother's brain."

The exiting of the fetus from the mother involves changes in the fetal heart, respiratory system, digestive system and brain from fetal systems too human systems.

"I made a comparison between sleep and a lack of cognitive function. OK... you've got me. Bad example. Reduced function isn't the same as no function. Although based on the level of cognition you require for personhood that may still apply."

There is no comparison between human sleep and the sleep of a fetus. Unless you can place a human in a womb, a comparison is not even possible.

Your whole post is false and filled with opinion, not scientific fact.

I wish I had more time to deal with this thread, but I don't. I have seen a ton of scientific errors similar to yours.

Russell Crawford said...

You have a choice as a pro lifer to save babies or fetuses. Your choice is to let babies die.

JDC said...

Excellent post! Keep up the good work SPL!

JDC said...

I see I pretty much stole your comment. Well, great minds think alike, I suppose.

Russell Crawford said...

Your choice is to murder innocent born life instead. You have a choice, you can save innocent born babies or you can make the intentional choice to let them die and save a fetus instead. Your choice is to let babies die.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

The hell? I don't think anyone should be unjustly killed, regardless of age or stage of development.

Russell Crawford said...

No human fetus has a human baby mind until it is born. It is impossible to tell if the mind of a human fetus will be the same as the mind of a baby until it is born. For example the mind must adapt to a different environment.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

How am I attacking girls and women, exactly? I'm not the one saying that girls deserved to be killed just because they happen to be the "wrong" gender. That's your view, not mine.

bluebeard cattown said...

Forced pregnancy = unjust killing, of random women, the ones unlucky enough to die from pregnancy.

bluebeard cattown said...

You are saying that their lives should be put on the line just because they happen to have been born with a uterus, or raped while in possession of that uterus. And if they die, you will have condemned them to death for being born female.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

You think it is perfectly moral and acceptable to murder someone because they happen to be the "wrong" gender? Why? I think it's wrong to kill an innocent human being regardless of the reason or motive.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

You think that pregnancy causes death 100% of the time? ooooookaaaayyyyyy.... I must be some medical miracle, then, because I've been pregnant 7 times and have lived to tell the tale.

bluebeard cattown said...

No, I am saying that if you really truly cared about female life, you woudln't play russian roulette with women's lives.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

And you're saying that women who engage in consensual sex should be able to kill human beings in order to avoid the foreseeable (if not intended) consequences of their actions, and that children who are conceived via rape deserve to be executed for the crime of their biological father.

Russell Crawford said...

The author would deny that assertion, but it is none the less true.

bluebeard cattown said...

It doesn't matter if it causes death 100pct of the time. You want to play Russian Roulette with women's lives, and too bad so sad if some women die, they asked for it by being born with a uterus.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

And if you really cared about all females, born or unborn, you wouldn't insist that they can be killed if their parents wanted a boy instead.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

So, you do believe that pregnancy causes death 100% of the time? How is it possible that I'm alive?

bluebeard cattown said...

Clearly, you want to hold women strictly liable for having sex, or for simply being raped, where the most benign punishment = a violation of bodily autonomy, the middle = torture and disability, and the worst = death.


Do women deserve capital punishment for having sex? For being raped?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I don't believe in forcing women to endanger their lives. I believe that it's wrong to kill innocent human beings (unlike you, sadly). There is never a medical reason to kill an unborn child, especially after viability. (before you bring up ectopic pregnancies, please google "principle of double effect." And before you bring up Dr. Savita Halappanavar, read savitatruth.com.)

bluebeard cattown said...

I am not 'insisting'. It is tacky to argue by misquotation. You want to end sex selective abortion, there are better ways than banning it. Such as, when it comes to bride prices in places like India, a financial incentive from the government will work to prevent such abortions.


Also, if people really don't want a girl, they will simply kill the infant once born. Abortion is preferable to female infanticide, dont you agree?

bluebeard cattown said...

Re-read what I wrote, you are making yourself look stupid.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/04/no-i-am-not-interested-in-punishing.html

bluebeard cattown said...

Forcing women to remain pregnant against their will forces them to endanger their lives. Simple logic.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Not banning sex-selective abortion sends a message that it's not a serious problem. It also leads to situations like this: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/doctor-risks-his-career-after-refusing-abortion-referral/story-fni0ffsx-1226733458187

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Funny how you won't answer the question.

bluebeard cattown said...

Yeah, a lawyer demolished that, if you care to read the comments. It does in fact hold women strictly liable for having sex, and put their lives and health at risk, not to mention their overall wellbeing, property, and is a violation of their right to privacy. All for the crime of having sex or getting raped.

bluebeard cattown said...

You do know what Russian Roulette is, don't you?

Ann said...

Kelsey you blog appears to be suffering from a troll infestation.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

No, it's simple stupidity, because pregnancy is not an inherently fatal condition. By your logic, we should ban women from driving too, because they could die in car accidents. Do you think women should be banned from driving.

Plus, if a woman does not want to get pregnant, she can abstain from participating in the act that causes pregnancy.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Actually, I didn't find those arguments in the comments convincing in the least.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Still won't answer the question, eh?

bluebeard cattown said...

Let me explain for you. Slowly.


If someone hands you a gun with a million chambers, and one chamber has a bullet, you *cannot* be forced to put that gun to your head and pull the trigger even *if* lives will be saved, because if you are unlucky and the chamber with the bullet has your number on it, you will be killed. And we do not force people to roll the dice with their lives on behalf of another. Period.

bluebeard cattown said...

Did you even read them?

bluebeard cattown said...

It doesn't matter if pregnancy is always fatal or not. Skydiving isn't always fatal - someone can't throw you out of a plane and say 'oh well' if you happen to be unlucky and die.

And your driving example is a false one, because we do not FORCE women to drive. It would be wrong to FORCE women to drive.

Plus, if a woman does not want to get pregnant, she can abstain from participating in the act that causes pregnancy.

You don't support abortion in the case of rape, my dear. So, what you really mean is 'she can abstain from being born with a uterus'

JoAnna Wahlund said...

It would seem to me that the Russian Roulette occurs when the woman engages in sex, because no contraceptive method is 100% effective. And given that pregnancy is not 100% fatal (contrary to what you seem to believe), there's no reason to assume that pregnancy = death.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Did you even read the post I linked?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

That skydiving analogy is so poor it's laughable.

And actually, your objection to the driving analogy would only be remotely plausible if and only if 100% of pregnancies were the result of women around being FORCED to have sex, but rape is only responsible for pregnancy less than 1% of the time (and in that case, abortion is wrong because it is inherently unjust to execute an unborn child for the crime of his/her biological father).

anotheranonymous said...

Um, no, that has not been established, actually

bluebeard cattown said...

That skydiving analogy is so poor it's laughable.

Many activities are safer than pregnancy, in fact. You have a lower chance of getting bit by a shark than you do of dying from pregnancy. That doesn't give anyone the right to throw you in the ocean and tell you 'good luck' even if it is to preserve a life.

And actually, your objection to the driving analogy would only be
remotely plausible if and only if 100% of pregnancies were the result of
women around being FORCED to have sex


And you can't force someone to remain in a car, or remain in the ocean, either.

You appear to be making two arguments. That because the chance of dying from pregnancy is low, the lives of the women who do die don't actually count...for anything.

And that the women, if she does die, esesntially 'asked' for the death penalty because she

1) consented to sex

2) was raped

Don't you think the death penalty is a bit harsh for having sex while female or being born with a uterus?

bluebeard cattown said...

You are arguing by misquotation and I would kindly ask that you knock it off. Pregnancy is NOT 100pct fatal but that is NOT the point. The point is, we do not force people to take a nonzero risk to preserve life.

Colin said...

I am all that, that doesn't mean that I have a right to other women's bodies in the name of feminism.

I agree that no person has the "right to other women's bodies" in the sense that no person has the right to cause another woman harm. I assume you would even agree that a mother would not have the right to her born daughter's body (in the sense that the mother has no right to physically abuse or kill her born daughter because her born daughter was costing her an immense amount of stress, money, space in her home, etc.) I think the main prolife feminist question is, "What makes a born living human woman different from an unborn living human woman? And if both born and unborn women are the same, then why shouldn't we promote equality for both?"

Forced birth is NOT supportive of women's rights, not by a long shot.



I don't think any prolife feminist would disagree with the fact that women should never be forced to carry a child. I certainly don't! However, it seems that statistically, most women who have abortions are not being forced to be pregnant. I would invite you to consider a little thought experiment: Imagine a person had the choice to push a button on a machine that would give them an immense feeling of pleasure, but the machine had a very small chance of popping out a baby. Would you think it should be legal to murder that child once it was popped out? Obviously, this thought experiment couldn't work in the case of rape. However, if we are asking the question of whether or not feminists can be prolife, I would argue yes! Especially if the unborn women can be considered as valuable as born women.

Mary Lee said...

Seriously. Their arguments are beyond pathetic and idiotic.

bluebeard cattown said...

However, it seems that statistically, most women who have abortions are not being forced to be pregnant.

If you force a woman to remain pregnant against her will you are effectively forcing her to be pregnant.

You are forcing her to live with an outcome that has the potential to maim, kill her, and destroy her life in many ways. All for having sex? Since when is having non-procreative sex while female a criminal act that should be punished with a violation of bodily autonomy, and in the worst cases, the death penalty?

JDC said...

You must be new around here.

deltaflute said...

In China and India, there are several charities (and other government incentives) who provide financial incentives in conjunction with the ban of sex-selective abortion. It's still not preventing the number of sex selective abortions or infanticide. In China, for example, there is a huge preference for boys because in their culture boys take care of their aging parents. There is also restrictions on birth. Those who violate those restrictions are forceably aborted or forced to pay a fine, which many can't afford. These restrictions include not being able to marry until the age of 27. Only being able to obtain a birth permit if married. Only able to obtain a birth permit for one child unless a) you have a daughter and live in rural China or b) you are an only child. This means that if you have siblings and you live in the city, you only have one chance. One chance to have a boy to take care of you in your old age. And two chances at maximum. So is it really a free choice? Is it really just simply giving people free money? I think the government policy is the limiting factor. It isn't a choice if your government is the one who decides how many children you can have. India has similar problems because it also contends with Western policies on population growth, but China is the extreme example. Banning sex-selective abortions and incentives really won't root out the problem in those countries. It's changing the law that limits births. Although banning sex-selective abortions in the West, helps combat the hyper-focus on gender that is seeping over due to immigration (and to a lesser extent already exists in the West with it's "one of each" mentality.)

JFeldman said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_7xtasMJdE

A father with 10 kids ages 3-5, with 4 women and he’s 21. Guess who supports those kids? Guess what chance those kids have in "life", or should I ask what "life".
Will you take those 10 kids in and feed, cloth, and educate them. It doesn't take a village, it takes responsibility for ones own actions and there are PEOPLE who could care less. Take the rose covered glasses off and look at children born in war
torn countries and doomed to starve to death or worse.......So yes, in our western society, women do have the right to choose, and it is a personal right that they exercise and not one I or you should force on them.

Russell Crawford said...

Sorry, but it is true. Pro lifers have a choice, they can save innocent born babies or they can choose to let them die and save a fetus instead. As an admitted pro lifer, she is killing born females to save fetuses.

someone45 said...

If you force a woman to gestate against her will you are taking away all her rights. She can't do what she wants with her life and her body anymore. Her life is no longer her own. All she is is basically a breeding cow.

An abortion has to do with MY body because the ZEF is attached to it. I can remove it if I want.

deltaflute said...

Yes, I agree. Take responsibility. Clearly he did not take responsibility before the children were conceived or after. The women also need to take responsibility.

There will always be people who care less. It's human nature. It would be lovely if people strove to take responsibility. That doesn't mean you molly coddle either.

Just because a person fails to be a responsible driver, doesn't mean that you let them keep their license. They have to accept the consequences of their actions.

Except in the case of abortion, there is no accepting the consequences of one's actions. It's punishing an innocent third party by depriving them of life. If you are truly concerned about the man not take responsibility, then fine him, jail him, and so forth for his actions. Killing someone else for someelse's inaction is not justice.

bluebeard cattown said...

And if you force the woman to gestate, and she dies, you have sentenced her to death for having sex.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

You're operating under a false assumption, that pregnancy = death. Your entire argument falls apart because your basic premise (pregnancy = death) is untrue. I'm living proof that it's untrue.

deltaflute said...

Where is the force? I really don't understand this. There is a responsibility and a consequence to every decision in life. Having sex is a decision the consequence of which could be everything from having a fun time to an STD like AIDS to making a baby. I don't see pro-abortionists getting up in arms about people contracting AIDS. What would that be called "forced" STDs? Is AIDS a punishment for having sex? Unless someone is deliberately trying to give you AIDS, then it's not forced. It's also not a punishment for having sex either. It's a consequence that can occur. You take the risk in consensual sex. If the risk of getting pregnant or contracting AIDS from sex is to high, then dont have sex. Nobody is forcing you to.

bluebeard cattown said...

I said that it *can* equal death. The potential is always there.


Stop arguing by misquotation, it is very very tacky, and dishonest.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I'm not misquoting you. Your entire premise hinges on the false assumption that pregnancy = death.

bluebeard cattown said...

You don't know what the words 'can' and 'potential' mean, do you?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

You could die in the next few seconds of a heart attack, or a blood clot, or nuclear attack. The potential is always there!

I risk death every day by driving to and from work. And actually, my risk of dying in a car accident his higher than my risk of dying due to pregnancy-related causes. Darn my employers for forcing me to risk my life! How cruel of them.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Better than you do, apparently.

bluebeard cattown said...

Forcing someone to live with AIDS or with STDs because they had sex would be forcing them to 'take responsibility' for their actions. Denying them treatment for a medical condition that can kill them = punishment.



And no, abstinence is not an option, not for people in the real world. People have sex for purposes of social bonding, and it is entirely ok to do so without having a child. You can't expect a couple to stay together for 30+ years of marriage and refrain from sex that entire time should they choose to remain childless.

bluebeard cattown said...

Now you're just trolling. I expected better of you, Joanna.

bluebeard cattown said...

Yes, the potential for death and bodily harm is always there, except we do not *force* people to engage in activities that could end in a heart attack or a blood clot. We don't even force them into cars, and once in a car, we cannot by law force them to stay in the car.


What you are doing is forcing women to risk their life and health based on YOUR assessment of the risk.


I think that swimming with sharks is totes safe and that your risks of getting bitten are really low. Do I have the right, then, to throw you in the water because *I* happen to think that the risk is reasonable? Or if you are already in the water, do I have the right to force you to remain there because I happen to think the risk is reasonable?

bluebeard cattown said...

Oh, and BTW, strawman fallacy. You lie about what I am saying 'that pregnancy ALWAYS results in death' and then you knock it down by saying that you are living proof that pregnancy doesn't kill.


You are embarrassing yourself, and the PL movement, please stop.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I'M trolling? Oh, that's rich.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

And in 99% of cases, a woman is not FORCED into sex. She chooses to engage in sex of her own free will. If I CHOOSE to drive to work, and I get into a car accident, I cannot sue my employer for forcing me to endure the consequences of my choice to drive to work.

bluebeard cattown said...

Yes, dear. Continually erecting strawman fallacies after having things explained to you is in fact trolling. You are not arguing in good faith.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I'm not the one insisting that pregnancy = death, when what you really mean is "there's a tiny chance that a woman could die from pregnancy complications." The risk of a child dying due to abortion, however, is nearly 100%. Why aren't you opposed to banning abortion, given that it is almost always fatal for one of the human beings involved?

deltaflute said...

But see the thing is nobody is forcing someone to live with AIDS. Currently, there are no universal treatments that eradicate AIDS. There are, however, universal treatments that eradicate the ability to have children. I don't personally recommend them, but they exist and nobody is preventing anyone from seeking those types of treatment. Not to mention that a woman's fertility window is not forever. In other words, you can expect people to engage in sex and remain childless. But creating a child is one of the consequences of having sex and it's completely juvenile to ignore the fact. Just like it's juvenile to have multiple sex partners and not ever expect to end up with an STD. It's a risk and a consequence of life. It would be nice if we could just switch off risks and eliminate consequences we don't like, but we can't. The best we can do is decide just how much risk we are willing to take. And so for some that may mean abstinence, which is not a dirty word, you know.

anotheranonymous said...

A. Not sure who you accuse prolifers of killing, but in response specifically to such an accusation, choosing to "let them die" is quite different than actively killing. Hopefully you can recognize my indirect point.


B. What makes you assume that prolifers are not actively involved in other causes? This is a discussion about abortion, not homelessness or girls' education in Pakistan or child soldiers, and therefore issues of abortion ate discussed here. Ty to stay on point.

bluebeard cattown said...

If you choose to drive to work, and you get into an accident, no one can deny you medical treatment because you made a bad choice. This is what you want to do to women - deny them medical treatment for a condition that can seriously harm them, all because they had the wrong kind of sex (or were raped).

JoAnna Wahlund said...

If someone illustrates the holes in your logic, that is not "erecting a straw man."

bluebeard cattown said...

You haven't poked any holes in my logic, because you are pretending that I said something that I didn't say.


Show me, explicitly, where I said 'pregnancy always 100pct ends in death for the woman'

JoAnna Wahlund said...

No one is advocating denying women treatment when they experience pregnancy complications, either. What we are denying is that a woman has the alleged right to kill an innocent human being who is not posing an actual threat to her life.

bluebeard cattown said...

There is nothing juvenile about taking responsibility for one's actions and choosing abortion. You just don't like that method of taking responsibility.

bluebeard cattown said...

I'm not the one insisting that pregnancy = death, when what you really
mean is "there's a tiny chance that a woman could die from pregnancy
complications.


Why do you think I used the words

can
potential
risk
Russian Roulette
Roll of the dice

Yes, the RISK of death and significant injury remains, and we cannot accurately predict which women will die from pregnancy. So, in effect, by forcing women to remain pregnant against their will, you are denying women, as a group, the inalienable right to life.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

You said it here: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/09/the-feminist-movement-cannot-afford-to.html#comment-1610852324

bluebeard cattown said...

Pregnancy is in itself a medical condition. A woman is healthier if she is not pregnant.


And 'life of the mother' exceptions can't save the woman if she bleeds out during or after birth, can it?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Actually, in this comment you did not use any of those words: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/09/the-feminist-movement-cannot-afford-to.html#comment-1610852324
"Women will always die from pregnancy. Even life of mother exceptions won't prevent this. By banning abortion you effectively deny women the right to life."

bluebeard cattown said...

Yes, learn to comprehend.



I did not say 'all women will always die from pregnancy'


I said that there are women who will die from pregnancy, because pregnancy will NEVER be 100pct safe, and we cannot predict WHICH women will die from pregnancy.


So in other words, pregnancy is a medical condition that will always kill women. We don't know which women, or how many women, but it will always kill women.



Just like the flu will always kill people. It doesn't kill everyone, but it will always kill some people.

bluebeard cattown said...

Common sense would dictate that I was not saying that all women always die from pregnancy 100pct of the time.


Don't be purposely obtuse.

deltaflute said...

It's not taking responsibility. Let me give a crude analogy. If you leave your house unlocked and come home one day to find an unarmed burglar robbing you who immediately attempts to flee and drops your stuff, do you think blasting them with a shot gun is a reasonable response? When it comes to culpability, you are taking a risk for not locking your door. The burglar is also at fault for taking a risk of entering your house. So to up the anti, you shoot him? Of course not. Most people will try to chase the person down, contact the police, take a photo. Very few people will kill the person. In the case of pregnancy, you run the risk when you have sex or take no measures to prevent pregnancy. Abortion is the most violent and least responsible manner in which to deal with pregnancy. I like the slogan for suicide prevention "It's a long term solution to a short term problem (if you want to call it a problem, which I don't think it is)." The other options are adoption or simply keeping the child. But the fact remains that you become responsible for the consequences of sex at the beginning of sex, not when a little blue line appears. Just like you are responsible for the consequences of driving when you get into a car not just when you have an accident.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Actually, I've always been healthier while pregnant, so you can't make a blanket statement like that.


Do you know the statistics of what you're speaking of? "Severe PPH occurs in approximately 11% of live births (WHO, 2005). The incidence is thought to be much higher in developing countries where many women do not have access to a skilled attendant at delivery and where active management of the third stage of labor may not be routine. Of the women who suffer severe blood loss postpartum, approximately 1% of these die as a result (Fawcus, 2007)." Source: http://www.pphprevention.org/pph.php


So your logic is: since 1% of 11% of women who experience PPH die (and that number is probably even lower in the U.S., since the stat above includes third-world countries with substandard maternity care), we should have abortion on demand without apology, and let an innocent child die.


Yeah... logic fail.


By the way, I've experienced PPH with four of my five births, and it was easily managed with an intramuscular shot of pitocin. With my fifth pregnancy, I was advised to try taking alfalfa supplements in the third trimester to help reduce PPH. I tried it, and it worked! For the first time, I did not need a shot of pitocin after childbirth and my bleeding was much more manageable. So, FYI if you have any friends who are pregnant and worried about PPH.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

And that, boys and girls, is what we call "irony."

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Yes, yes it is.

anotheranonymous said...

Actually, in the "abortion is taking responsibility" argument, the problem is still the refusal to believe in equal rights for all humans. If a person chose to have a child but then felt it was infringing too much on their time, shooting the child is not considered taking responsibility; the argument only works if the child is not considered equal. As the unborn are not considered equal. That's why the "abortion is taking responsibility" argument does not actually address the first issue.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Russell spams this nonsense in every single post. I advise not engaging. I've tried, and it's fruitless. He insists that unless you are actively working 24/7 to eradicate poverty (I guess by spamming pro-life blogs?) you are therefore intentionally killing born children. It's nonsensical and incoherent.

EdinburghEye said...

Not at all. The only person in this conversation arguing that girls deserve to die is you: you are arguing that once pregnant, a girl no longer deserves to live if her life can be saved by abortion.


Pregnancy is the leading cause of death for teenage girls. Why do you think teenage girls deserve to die rather than have their lives saved by abortion?

expect_resistance said...

Having an abortion if one doesn't want to be pregnant is being responsible and it is a moral choice.

deltaflute said...

Sure. And that leads to another common argument that unless one is pro-life will lead to 1) denying that biologically a fetus is a human being or 2) assigning "personhood" to some sort of arbitrary thing like the ability to feel pain. This aim at denying dignity to the unborn ends up hitting a lot of people who are already born like the disabled, infants, Jews, blacks, women, and so forth. Since it's the same sort of arguments used to deny personhood to them. It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

EdinburghEye said...

Annnnd we have it: the prolifer comes out and admits what she's REALLY against is girls/women having sex for fun, not to get pregnant.

deltaflute said...

How so? Where do you derive your morality from?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Why do you think it's acceptable to kill unborn children simply because they're female? I don't think anyone should be unjustly killed, born or unborn.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db37.htm

"The five leading causes of death among teenagers are Accidents (unintentional injuries), homicide, suicide, cancer, and heart disease. Accidents account for nearly one-half of all teenage deaths."

Funny, I don't see pregnancy on your list. Where are you getting your assertion that pregnancy routinely kills teenage girls? Wouldn't it be better to push for better maternity care for teenagers, if they are indeed dropping like flies due to pregnancy?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Strawman. See here: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/04/no-i-am-not-interested-in-punishing.html

EdinburghEye said...

"Where is the force? I really don't understand this. "


I take it, then, you live in a prochoice country where a woman will not have her vagina investigated as a crime scene when she has a miscarriage, where she will not be prosecuted and jailed for years or decades if the courts decide the miscarriage was abortion.


If you lived in a prolife country, where women are forced through pregnancy and childbirth (to the death, sometimes) you'd know what forced pregnancy meant.


But like all prolifers, I perceive from the rest of your comment, you are basically against girls/women having sex, and perceive unwanted pregnancy/the threat of having to have an unwanted baby as a suitable punishment.


Every child should be a wanted child.

EdinburghEye said...

Why do you think it's acceptable to routinely kill teenage girls?

You've got an American list. In the US, teenage girls have access to safe legal abortion. Therefore, pregnancy isn't a leading cause of death for teenage girls. Isn't abortion great? Saves so many girls' lives right there in the US. Aren't you happy now that abortion is legal in the US?

Or are you still unhappy, because you want American teenage girls to die?

Worldwide, including prolife countries where abortion is deliberately made inaccessible:

"Complications during pregnancy and childbirth are the second cause of death for 15-19 year-old girls globally."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs364/en/

And: "Babies born to adolescent mothers face a substantially higher risk of dying than those born to women aged 20 to 24."



But, what do you care if babies die, so long as their adolescent mothers can be forced to give birth at whatever risk to their own lives?

EdinburghEye said...

Oh, come off it. You just came right out and said you think that pregnancy should be regarded as the natural "consequence" of sex, and girls should avoid sex (if they can, of course - rape, child marriage, etc) not get to use contraception or abortion.


You're against sex.

EdinburghEye said...

The prolife movement in the US does not campaign for maternity leave. Prolifers routinely argue that employers should be allowed to fire women who got pregnant and didn't have an abortion.


The prolife movement in the US does not campaign to close the wage gap.


The prolife movement in the US is indifferent or eagerly cooperative in domestic abuse, campaigning against a woman's right to abort a pregnancy conceived via abuse and her right to sunder herself completely from her abuser.


The prolife movement in the US is explicitly complicit in gender discrimination and abuse, globally and in America.


As for volunteering at "pregnancy centers", yes, I daresay: those lying, deceitful organisations, many of which are directly linked to the adoption industry.

EdinburghEye said...

Shame prolifers have to call their challengers "trolls"....

Russell Crawford said...

"A. Not sure who you accuse prolifers of killing,"

I have been very clear on my site "Scientific Abortion Law" and through out my postings that all people are dying and therefore all can be saved. Some that are in dire need can be seen at poverty.com, but there are plenty of others in your own neighborhood that need help.


"but in response specifically to such an accusation, choosing to "let them die" is quite different than actively killing."

You are unaware of the legal concept of "murder by omission." If a person has a duty to save another person, and they intentionally let that person die, they have committed murder by omission. You might want to look that up. Pro lifers have a duty to "save babies" because that is what they claim to do. Of course they make the intentional choice to let "babies" die and choose instead to attempt to save potential life. If pro lifers were claiming to "save fetuses and let babies die" then there would be no cause of action possible. I suggest that pro lifers be truthful and admit they are not saving babies.


"Hopefully you can recognize my indirect point."

Well, you didn't research before commenting and it turns out you have no point.

"B. What makes you assume that prolifers are not actively involved in other causes?"

I know for a fact they are involved in other causes. But that does not make it moral for them to kill innocent babies. And that is what they do, they murder babies in an attempt to force the birth of fetuses.

"This is a discussion about abortion, not homelessness or girls' education in Pakistan or child soldiers, and therefore issues of abortion ate discussed here. Ty to stay on point"

As you can see, your comment above is based upon your failure to understand the problem.

deltaflute said...

Holy snot bubbles what? Where in the blazes does Ireland do forced vaginal exams? Where does Ireland force a woman to remain pregnant until death?

Okay where do you think that I'm anti-sex? And why is it just girls and women? Men have sex too. That's how women get pregnant. And where did I say it's a punishment? I have emphatically said pregnancy and children are in fact NOT punishments whether they are wanted or not. I said that pregnancy is a consequence of sex. It is a natural consequence and has no assigned morality. You used the term punishment, not I.

And every child is a wanted child. There are lists of people wanting to adopt.

Really I think you're just trying to be inflammatory and delight in attacking people instead of actually dialoguing with them. If you want to make an actual argument, please substantiate it with facts. Otherwise I will not waste my time.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Read the article I linked, as it demonstrates why that argument is a straw man.

expect_resistance said...

Yep, that sentence stuck out as a huge strawman argument. Great post!

EdinburghEye said...

Oh, you live in Ireland, right. Where the healthcare system outsources almost all safe legal abortions to other country's healthcare systems, at the patient's risk and expense. You're quite right: in Ireland force is applied to the medical staff, who know they risk two years in jail if they help a woman who needs an abortion, not - usually - directly to the girls and women who can - usually - leave the country.

Of course Ireland is also the country which forced a suicidal asylum seeker/rape victim to undergo forced surgery at 24 weeks pregnancy after she'd been begging for an abortion for months. But, you say, you "don't understand" force. The woman who was forced through pregnancy and surgery against her will by Irish doctors and the Irish legal system certainly does - but you don't care about her, do you?

"Where does Ireland force a woman to remain pregnant until death?"

At University Hospital Galway, where a miscarrying woman was denied the abortion that would have saved her life.

At Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, County Louth, where a woman suffering from cancer was denied an abortion and denied chemotherapy, until she died.

Didn't you know? Didn't you care?

"And every child is a wanted child. There are lists of people wanting to adopt."

And before Irish women could just go to the UK to have safe legal abortions, there were lists of children neglected to death in orphanages because no one wanted them.

anotheranonymous said...

The problem of teen pregnancy is not the lack of availability of safe abortions but the lack of healthy teaching about sex and contraception, including teaching both young men andyounf women the meaning of the word no. We tell kids it's totally OK to play with a loaded gun (sex) rather than developing a healthy respect for it. Poverty and boredom are also huge problems. I have friends who lead youth choirs and sports teams in townships in south Africa for the express purpose of giving young men and women alternatives to violence and sex, and have seen drops in teen pregnancy (and other unwanted activities and consequences). If, rather than throwing safe abortions at these countries to bandage the real problems, we put in the time and effort to address those real issues, we might see a drop in teen pregnancy.

I am pro life. I also feel heartbroken over the causes and realities of unwanted pregnancies. When I am able to again, I will continue putting in efforts to assuage root problems. In the meantime, once again, throwing abortion about to support ongoing unhealthy behavoiurs is still no solution.

bluebeard cattown said...

Trolls are people who refuse to argue in good faith. I don't see any of the pro-choicers here trolling just to upset people. Trolls don't offer vaild arguments - they post to annoy.

bluebeard cattown said...

Equal rights = there is no right to occupy/use the body of another without explicit/ongoing consent, even if one's life depends upon it.


A toddler can't force, by law, it's parents to breathe, eat, or process wastes for it. Why should a prenate have a right that a toddler does not have?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Uh, no. If you said "People will always die from car accidents" I would assume that you meant what you said, and I would respond by saying, "That's actually not accurate, as not all car accidents are fatal."

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Women still die from car accidents, and it doesn't matter how rare or how common certain accidents are. It is a FACT that not every accident can be predicted, prevented or cured. Women will die. Period. We can't predict which women will die, or how many. But some will die. By forcing women to be employed and commute to their workplaces you are effectively denying women the inalienable right to life. You are rolling the dice with women's lives.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Also, your strawman of my beliefs would only make sense if I was also opposed to women receiving the very best medical care while pregnant, in order to mitigate pregnancy complications. However, I'm not.

bluebeard cattown said...

We don't force women to be employed. We don't force them, by law, to drive, or to remain in a car, without consent.

deltaflute said...

By law, a parent is obligated to provide air, food, water, and the ability to use the toilet (as well as other hygienic things). Otherwise a parent can be prosecuted for abandonment or neglect. A parent is not by law obligated to provide such things to fully functioning adult. Why does a toddler have such rights, but not an adult?

bluebeard cattown said...

The meaning is clear to anyone with even the smallest amount of common sense

And you would only have a case if I had said ALL women will always die etc

bluebeard cattown said...

Very best medical care can't prevent every death.

EdinburghEye said...

Free access to safe and effective contraception, and strong societal encouragement and education to use contraception unless you are trying to start a family, has been proven - over and over and over again - to be the only effective method of reducing teenage pregnancy and therefore reducing teenage abortion.


But prolifers continue to be unwilling to tackle the root problem - ignorance and lack of availability/access to contraception - and prefer instead to support such unhealthy attitudes as "sex is a loaded gun".


If a girl is pregnant and is too young to have a baby, she should be able to have an abortion, freely, legally, safely. Your objections to this demonstrate your lack of concern for girls' welfare.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

And amazingly enough, in less than 1% of cases women aren't forced to engage in the act that causes conception, too. Funny how that works.

EdinburghEye said...

"if I was also opposed to women receiving the very best medical care while pregnant"


As you have repeatedly made clear, you are opposed to girls & women receiving the very best medical care when pregnant, as the very best medical care includes free access to safe legal abortion on demand.


But it's nice to meet an American who thinks the US should improve its healthcare system to the Canadian or French standard.

EdinburghEye said...

Oh, you prolifers. All so anti-sex.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Actually, no, the meaning is not clear. Perhaps you should be more conscientious when wording your statements.

expect_resistance said...

Look worldwide beyond the U.S. From Advocates for Youth - Maternal mortality statistics underscore how societies have failed women, especially young women in developing countries. As many as 529,000 women die each year from complications of pregnancy and childbirth.1 Pregnancy is the leading cause of death for young women ages 15 through 19.2 The reproductive health of adolescent women depends on biological, social, cultural, and economic factors. Programs must provide education, family planning services, and pre- and postnatal care to reduce morbidity and mortality among young women.

World Bank. Maternal Mortality [Public Health at a Glance] 2006; http://www.worldbank.org; accessed 4/5/2007.

UNFPA (2004). State of World Population, 2004; http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2004/english/ch9/page5.htm; accessed 3/21/2007.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/436-adolescent-maternal-mortality-an-overlooked-crisis

JoAnna Wahlund said...

No, it can't. But on the flip side, a woman who is not pregnant could get breast cancer or blood clots from her birth control pills, but I don't see you advocating for them to be banned. Why do you want women to die?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Abortion is not medical care. Medical care is meant to heal, not murder.

bluebeard cattown said...

We don't force women to take BCP.

bluebeard cattown said...

You mean concise. And it is clear to anyone who is not trolling.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Oh, you pro-aborts. All so anti-life.

(By the way, my husband would vehemently dispute your assertion that I am anti-sex.) ;)

bluebeard cattown said...

So its punishment then?

bluebeard cattown said...

I meant literally. Your toddler can't use your kidneys for dialysis, for example.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I absolutely agree that we should work harder to improve maternal health and maternal outcomes worldwide, just as Victoria states in her article: "We fight for maternity leave, we fight to close the wage gap, we volunteer our time at domestic abuse shelters and pregnancy centers, and we spread awareness about gender discrimination across the world and close to home."

expect_resistance said...

I'm a citizen of the world and have a global view of rights for women.

deltaflute said...

The Canadian system? Oh, surely not. I can tell you that living in Canada there is a 2-4 hour wait time at the only prenatal clinic here in town. And that's to simply pee on a stick. And we're not talking some small town either. In Canada the wait times are enormous and the bed-side manner is atrocious at times. Ask any Canadian waiting to have knee replacement surgery or cataract surgery what the wait time is? It took me a month to finally get a family doctor. A month. No if the US wants to improve healthcare, they don't want to follow the Canadian model.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Well, we can agree on that!

deltaflute said...

I don't live in Ireland. I live in Canada where people go to jail for Euthanasia. That's the way laws work. If the people vote to decide against something, than the people who violate such laws are prosecuted.

The woman in question had mental illness. Severe mental illness. Do we allow people who want to commit suicide do so because they suffer from mental illness? Do we allow them to amputate limbs because they have mental illness? Point is you uphold the woman's dignity and the child's dignity in light of mental illness. It isn't an excuse to allow someone to harm someone else or themselves.

In the Galway case, the woman was dying from antibiotic resistance E. coli. People die from that regardless of pregnancy. It was not the pregnancy that killed her.

I'm not familiar with the cancer case, but I assure you a number of cancers are treatable with chemotherapy even during pregnancy.

It is unfortunate that a number of children died in orphanages and in mother/child homes in Ireland. It is my understanding that this was due to diseases that are now treatable and not due to neglect. This of course does not negate the fact that currently there are lists of people wanting to adopt children.

deltaflute said...

As I said, the analogy is crude. The point is that we don't use extreme measures especially when we ourselves are negligent.

bluebeard cattown said...

Having non procreative sex isn't a criminally negligent act.

deltaflute said...

By law, a parent is to provide normal basic necessities. For an unborn child, the normal basic necessity is to gestate. For a newborn, this means breastmilk or formula. For a toddler, it is having food provided to them. And the necessary caloric intake increases as the child ages, thus the amount of food a parent requires to provide increases until such time as the child can provide food for themselves. A parent could attempt to provide the same calorie intake of a one year old to a nine year old, but that would be a form of starvation. The child would die. The parent would be prosecuted. In the case of the unborn, removing the child from gestation is equally a death sentence. In some instances this is unavoidable, as in the case of removing the fallopian tube. The unborn can't sustain itself in the tube; it would die. The mother wouldn't be able to keep the fallopian tube and so it is removed with unfortunately the child.

In the case of abortion, it is simply removing the child from gestation with the intent to kill. This is unlike removing a diseased fallopian tube or a c-section, which doesn't involve killing the child. In the case of abortion, the child is forceably removed through chemicals or surgery. There's no intent to keep the child alive even after the child is removed. If it were simply a matter of removing the child and ending the pregnancy, why not provide outside life-saving measures to the child? You can give a toddler an extraordinary amount of nutrition that's not necessary for survival. Likewise some unborn simply need extraordinary amount of help outside the womb in order to live.

But of course you know this isn't about providing basic care to a child regardless of the stage of development. You view it as extraordinary care inside the womb and outside of it no care whatsoever. Unless I'm much mistake and you believe that all abortions should be treated like c-sections.

secularprolife.org said...

Pregnancy is a supererogatory burden. Whether or not it's natural is irrelevant. And, that is a fallacy.

The point of abortion is not to kill. It is to end the pregnancy. The prenate dies because it is not viable ex utero. If it was viable, as in a post viability pregnancy termination, all attempts will be made to deliver it alive.

secularprolife.org said...

I never said it was criminal. If you read the thread the point of the analogy was about responsibility. The analogy was to illustrate that if you leave your door unlocked it is likely someone will enter your home. If you choose to have sex and take no measures to prevent pregnancy then why the surprise of pregnancy? And if you do take such measures, why the surprise when they fail because all contraception excluding abstinence have a failure rate? If they do fail, why the need for shot gun tactics? You took the risk. Why does it suddenly become a surprise that sex produces babies? Is that not the natural process by which babies come to being? I doesn't surprise me that if I fail to lock the door someone may come it. It should shock someone that if they engage in sex you may wind up pregnant.

secularprolife.org said...

We deprive people of their bodily autonomy if they have committed a crime. You stated that non procreative sex was a negligent act. To deprive a woman of her bodily autonomy for having sex, and to subject her to great pain, and potential disability and death is to punish her as you would a criminal.

secularprolife.org said...

Maternal death rates for teenagers in the U.S. are probably lower because they have access to abortion and sent forced to gestate like in many other parts of the world. Hmmm. I suggest looking at teen maternal death rates in countries where abortion is illegal. It's higher.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 683   Newer› Newest»