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:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 683   Newer›   Newest»
secularprolife.org said...

Oh, my! I guess you don't know what abortion is. Have you heard of partial birth abortion? It's where they dilate the cervix, essentially causing the woman to go into labor, pull the baby partially out of the birth canal and then stab it in the back of the head to suck out it's brains. There's no attempt to simply end the pregnancy.



In surgical abortions, they dilate the cervix than put in instruments to pull the baby apart while removing them. Some of these babies are viable. In some cases the baby is already dead because the doctor was kind enough to inject it's heart with something to stop it from beating.


No this simply isn't a matter of having a c-section to end the pregnancy and remove the baby. In all cases of abortion, it's about killing the baby. In the US, there are laws which protect children who survive the abortion process. In Canada there are none. Those babies lives are literally in the hands of the abortionist who can either leave them die or send them to the nicu.



And all forms of abortion are currently legally available in Canada and in some parts of the US.

secularprolife.org said...

I advocate for full reproductive health care for women all over the world. Including abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

Sex isn't negligent. There are natural consequences to doing everything in life. You can smoke if you like, but you can also wind up with cancer. You may equally not wind up with cancer. It's a numbers game. There are statistically risks. I'd be happy to give you the statistically risks of becoming pregnant if you engage in sex. I'd also be happy to give you the statistical risk of getting into a car accident if you drive. Yet no one gets up in arms if an accident occurs because people know the risks. They prepare for them by buying insurance. They also may elect not to drive but walk or use public transportation as those have lower risks. It's completely surprising to me that nobody acknowledges that one of the consequences of sex is pregnancy and that people should be informed of that risk before they engage in sex.

secularprolife.org said...

Partial birth abortion = illegal. Now doctors have to do a more dangerous procedure and remove it in pieces. This is when there is no other option due to medical emergency or severe fetal deformity. This kind of post viability abortion is done on wanted babies in pregnancy gone wrong. Induction of labour is the safest if possible.

Viability is between 24 and 28 weeks. Most states don't permit abortion past 20 weeks.

Yes, a non viable prenate dies because it is separated from the uterus. The method of removal is irrelevant since an 8 week embryo is incapable of survival outside the uterus. Removal by c section would only harm the woman and I bet that you would still oppose abortion in that case.

secularprolife.org said...

Negligent = your words.

And we don't force people to live with lung cancer, even if they made a poor decision and spent their lives smoking.

secularprolife.org said...

Abortion is not euthanasia. Most women who live in Ireland leave the country to get an abortion. Even though abortion is illegal in Ireland it hasn't stopped abortion but only made it more difficult for women to get.

secularprolife.org said...

Great list of examples. I remember the case of the suicidal woman, horrible.

secularprolife.org said...

Why does that matter?

secularprolife.org said...

Partial birth abortion is legal in Canada. Didn't you read that? There are no laws preventing any type of abortions in Canada. None. It's entirely up the hospital and the doctor's discretion to refuse them.

A c-section is not the same as an abortion. A c-section is removing the child with the intent to save the mother and the child's life.

An abortion is the deliberate removal of a child with the intent to kill it. Chemicals and surgery is meant to maime and kill the child. It is not meant to remove the child and transplant it somewhere where it can survive. If that were the case it would be called a c-section.

In cases where a c-section is necessary to remove a fallopian tube or a diseased uterus, I have already stated (and I apologize if this was a bit unclear) that this is not abortion. Therefore I have no problem with such. I do however have a problem when the intent is to kill the child, which in every case of abortion, that is what happens.

secularprolife.org said...

You said "Having an abortion..is a moral choice." I'm trying to figure out where you derive your ethics from. One can't debate with you if they have no idea where you get your "morality" from. Obviously you have some sort of ethics or you wouldn't have stated such.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes. This x 1000.

secularprolife.org said...

*sigh* pregnancy is temporary. Lung cancer can be temporary. It can also be permanent. I've never heard of anyone being permanently pregnant. It's not a matter of forcing someone to live with lung cancer. It's simply a consequence of an action. Likewise pregnancy, while temporary is a consequence of an action. Nobody forces you to be pregnant. Eventually the pregnancy ends. Likewise you either die from lung cancer or you don't.

secularprolife.org said...

Just because that's your experience doesn't mean it's the same for all woman.

secularprolife.org said...

Would you oppose abortion if every abortion was a c section? Yes or no?

And in Canada, abortion is not possible until after 24 weeks (canada lacks the facilities)and also doctors will not perform an abortion past 24 weeks. Even though there is no abortion law in canada, you are being dishonest by implying that women have partial birth abortions as a routine measure.

If a woman requires a post viability abortion she will have to travel to the USA.

secularprolife.org said...

So you do see pregnancy as punishment for having sex.

secularprolife.org said...

Bingo!

secularprolife.org said...

But it's against the law in Ireland. Just like euthanasia is against the law in Canada. One could travel to Oregon too. Just because it's currently illegal to euthanize in Canada it hasn't stopped people from trying. It's just made it more difficult.

I'm not sure what your trying to get at. Are you arguing that euthanasia and abortion should be readily available everywhere despite the majority of voters disagreeing with you? Are you against government?

secularprolife.org said...

9 months in jail is also temporary.

Making you live with your lung cancer for 9 months before providing treatment is also temporary.

If the woman is permanently injured, disabled, or dies from the pregnancy, the effect is permanent.

secularprolife.org said...

You sound like injury, disability, and death are commonly what occurs during pregnancy. Do you have any statistics to back that up? Because what I see, is that in the US women die from cancer and heart disease long before pregnancy. And in other countries, the high maternity death rate is due to poor prenatal care. But you are promoting abortion over cancer screenings and better prenatal care? You think the deliberate killing of unborn is somehow better?

secularprolife.org said...

The right to not have harm, death, or disability imposed upon you exists regardless of the level of risk.

Shark diving is safer than pregnancy. That doesn't mean that you can be forced into the water without your explicit and ongoing consent.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes very racist.

BTW you are on a roll today of some very excellent posts. A fine job!

secularprolife.org said...

You are equating abortion, which is the deliberate ending of an unborn baby's life with a c-section which is removing a live baby and giving it care in order for it to survive. Abortions involve the dilation of the cervix. C-sections are an incision into the uterus. They are completely different. So I can't with certainty answer your question since I don't know what you are asking.

I never said they had partial birth abortions as a routine measure. I said they could. In fact what I said exactly was it was legal. Anyone could set up the facilities if they wished to and perform such abortions and nobody can say "boo" about it. The fact that no such laws exist or that the abortionist is not required to care for a child who is "born alive" is disturbing. I also said that all of this is up to the discretion of the hospital and the doctor. Many hospitals and doctors elect not to perform abortions at all. Of course this doesn't go over so well.

secularprolife.org said...

The point of abortion is to end the pregnancy unless of course you think that women are sociopaths who abort because they get off on killing?

secularprolife.org said...

Wrong, abortion is medical care.

secularprolife.org said...

And yet, for the most part, most pregnancies result in consensual sex. Also the vast majority of abortions are because of consensual sex. But if one goes shark diving they take a risk. Likewise sense most people aren't forced into sex, they also take a risk. There is no imposition. Nobody is maiming you or killing you. Pregnancy is the natural result of sex.

secularprolife.org said...

Foreseeable if unintended consequence =/= punishment

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

secularprolife.org said...

Medical care is intended to restore a human being to health. Killing a human being via direct abortion accomplishes the exact opposite. Ergo, direct abortion is not medical care.

secularprolife.org said...

That's not the point of abortion. You can end a pregnancy through c-section. You can end a pregnancy through induction and labor. I've done so myself. It did not result in a dead child, thankfully.

Abortion's goal is to terminate a pregnancy and kill the child in the process. There are no life saving measures given to the child unless the child is born in the US. A child past viability is injected with chemicals to stop the heart beat. Then the child is removed. A child born through induction does not have large syringe shoved into their heart before being removed. A child born by c-section does not have the uterus flushed with chemicals that burn the child before delivery. The point of abortion is not simply to remove the child. It's to kill it. Women aren't sociopaths. They simply are lied to or don't know or don't care. And in some cases do care and live to regret that decision every.single.day. but felt they had no support but rather pressured into it.

Please educate yourself on what exactly happens during various abortion procedures. They are not the same as delivery procedures because as I said, in abortion, the child is killed first, then removed.

secularprolife.org said...

Can't save a 6 week embryo no matter how hard you try. They cannot survive outside the uterus.

If all 6 week embryos were removed intact, through c section, would you still oppose abortion? The 6 week embryo will die exactly like the ectopic pregnancy - disconnection from the woman's body.

secularprolife.org said...

If you are forced to remain in shark infested water, the people who forced you to remain in the water are responsible for any harm that comes to you. And even though shark diving is risky, if you get bit, we do not deny you medical care because you were stupid and took a risk.

STDs are a natural result of sex. Should people be denied antibiotics because they had unprotected sex? You know. .punishment for negligent behavior.

secularprolife.org said...

Abortion is not the same as euthanasia. The topic of this thread is abortion. Outlawing abortion in Ireland is not stopping Irish citizens from traveling to the UK to have an abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

If antibiotics do nothing such as in the case of herpes, then yes deny away. But that would be because, it's pointless there is no cure for herpes.

And herpes isn't a punishment. I'm not sure why you keep assigning morality to such things. This is a secular blog. Unless you're using the term as social science, but then you are using it incorrectly. A punishment in social science is the removal of something.

Herpes is a consequence. A natural consequence of having unprotected sex (which is the negligent behavior because you are neglecting to take care of yourself and uping the risk). You run the risk of contracting herpes yourself.

Likewise pregnancy, however long, is the natural consequence of sex. There are ways to prevent pregnancy, abstinence being one among many as I've stated.

Medical care for pregnancy is different than abortion. Because as I've stated elsewhere abortion is the ending of a pregnancy by deliberately killing the unborn child. Pregnancies can be terminated in other ways, none of which involve the deliberate ending of a child's life.

secularprolife.org said...

Antibiotics can cure many STDs. Should people be denied antibiotics to treat STDS, which are a natural consequence of sex?

Unprotected sex = negligent behavior.

secularprolife.org said...

Women have an absolute right to decide when and if to reproduce. Abortion has existed for thousands of years. Abortion is as old as pregnancy. Women have and do have the right to decide their fertility. Anything less is misogyny.

secularprolife.org said...

A more apt comparison would be that you went shark diving (had sex), got bit by a shark (pregnancy) got out of the water (ended the aexual encounter). Medical treatment is necessary...the beat medical treatment, of course (prenatal care). Obviously the difference between a shark bite and a pregnancy is that the shark bite involves only your body and the pregnancy involves the body of another. No comparison or analogy is ever really accurate because pregnancy is a unique state of being. It cannot be compared to an injury or illness because the end of pregnancy is not physical death. Suffice it to say that while I try to clarify your analogy, no analogy is great.

secularprolife.org said...

So I think you are a humanist? For most humans, anyway.

Genocide has existed for thousands of years. Patriarchy has existed for thousands of years. That isn't an argument for the good of their existence.

secularprolife.org said...

The point is, we don't force people to risk life and limb against their will. Even if it would preserve a life.

secularprolife.org said...

I am Canadian, and our healthcare system is just fine. Northern tea partiers like delta here want to replace it with a US style system. Our conservative govt is trying to dismantle it by strangling it for funds.

secularprolife.org said...

The majority of people are against murder and genocide. This is not the same for abortion. Many if not a large majority of people will let women decide what is best for them, including having an abortion. I know people who wouldn't consider having an abortion but will not dictate what all women should do based on their personal choice. This is being pro-choice.

secularprolife.org said...

Birth control. If one had sex and doesn't want to be pregnant then abortion is an option. Sometimes the best option. It's not up to you or anyone else what is best for her. I fully support the personal decisions a woman makes because it is her decision not mine.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, deliberately terminating a pregnancy is sometimes better. Every pregnancy is different as are all women different. This is why abortion is a personal medical decision.

secularprolife.org said...

So anyone with type 2 diabetes shouldn't be allowed treatment because it's their fault?

secularprolife.org said...

According to Guttmacher, 1% of abortions are due to pregnancy resulting from rape. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf
It's estimated that about 5% of women who are raped will become pregnant as a result of the rape: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-the-incidence-of-rape-resulting-in-pregnancy-is-very-low/2013/06/12/936bc45e-d3ad-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_blog.html

secularprolife.org said...

What doesn't make sense to me is that you are advocating for women's rights but only for women who are already born. So the question is does a women only have rights after she is born? What about the 33 million unborn baby girls who have been killed through abortion since 1973, in the US alone. They are undeniably a human and female...so why don't they have rights? I am a woman and therefore legally I have the "right" to kill my unborn female child but she has no rights because she is less developed...smaller than me? I would argue that the reason women are mistreated is because we as a society don't recognize the value of life from its beginning.

secularprolife.org said...

I am pro-life. And I am NOT anti-sex. But, everyone knows that anytime two people have sex the possibility of the woman becoming pregnant is there, even if she is on birth control. When someone wants to have a baby they have sex. But, people also have sex for pleasure and there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong, is that people have sex, accidentally become pregnant and decided to kill their unborn child because they do not want it. Once a human life is created aka conception, you cannot "get rid of" or erase the act without killing an innocent life. The unborn child is already there, growing inside of their mother regardless of if the child was planned or not. To say that the child's life is less valuable then the mother's is ultimately saying that having sex is worth more than our very own children. We will never value the lives of those already born until we recognize and cherish the lives of the smallest human beings.

secularprolife.org said...

Born or unborn, no "woman" is entitled to the body of another.


Oh, and born women are actually capable of suffering unlike a mindless clump of tissue that may or may not ever achieve sentience.

secularprolife.org said...

I understand that in this post, I will not be able to change your heart on this matter. So, I do not concede to your argument but I pray that you will see the humanity in the unborn human children. Who, at only three weeks gestational age already have a beating heart. http://americanpregnancy.org/while-pregnant/first-trimester/

secularprolife.org said...

A beating heart doesn't mean anything if the brain is not functional.

secularprolife.org said...

If you stand by that logic you are saying we should be able to kill anyone if their brain isn't "functional". So, how do you define functionality? Many people can't talk or even think logically the way you and I can...do they deserve to die? are they unworthy of life?

secularprolife.org said...

Prenates are not sentient. No mind. Literally. Even a severely cognitively disabled person has a mind. A prenate is less sent it than a fly.

secularprolife.org said...

I was going to post the same comment too! Excellent article.

secularprolife.org said...

mine too, and I am sure many other pro-llife husbands too!

secularprolife.org said...

The definition of sentient is: having the power of perception by the senses. unborn babies respond to their parents voices, move around in their mother's wombs when they are uncomfortable or when they hear loud noises. (they are not brain dead or comparable to a fly) "A simple definition of consciousness is sensory awareness of the body, the self, and the world. The fetus may be aware of the body, for example by perceiving pain. It reacts to touch, smell, and sound, and shows facial expressions responding to external stimuli." -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19092726


It is not right or fair to discriminate against the unborn because they are less developed than you are.

secularprolife.org said...

Prior to 25 weeks fetuses have zero capacity for sentience.

Do you eat meat? If so, why do you discriminate against animals because they are not as intelligent as you?

secularprolife.org said...

You are comparing human unborn children to animals!!!


An unborn dog or hippo will never develop into an adult human being....so you're argument is invalid. Whatever is human is human from the beginning. It's not about intelligence it's about humanity.

secularprolife.org said...

So when a pregnant woman dies of eclampsia, and obviously the foetus she is carrying dies inside her, to you that's not murder - because saving her life by performing an abortion would not in your view be healthcare?

secularprolife.org said...

Living in the UK, I naturally think that the US should follow the NHS model, which while not perfect is clearly a vast improvement on their current model.

secularprolife.org said...

So you don't count women as human beings, then?


When pregnancy is damaging a woman's health or even threatening her life, abortion will restore her to health. Without access to safe legal abortion, girls and women die. But you don't want to save their lives, and so redefine all girls and women as "not human" and therefore abortion as "not healthcare".


And this is why prolifers can't be feminists.

secularprolife.org said...

I am pro-life. And I am NOT anti-sex.

So, you support all kids getting proper sex education with strong encouragement to use contraception, and free access to contraception?


...which is, incidentally, the only means by which the abortion rate is ever lowered?

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, you anti-sex types. All so ready to claim that anyone who supports a woman's right to choose is "pro-abort".

And always, always arguing that women need to be punished for having sex by pregnancy: that no woman should be allowed to choose when and how many children to have.

secularprolife.org said...

You just said that sentience, let alone sapience, isn't necessary to be considered a person.

So why exempt animals?

secularprolife.org said...

It only matters that the law of the land protect innocent human beings from being killed. In 99% of cases no one forces a woman to get pregnant and forcing her not to kill her child will not automatically kill her. Everyone on this page will advocate good health care for pregnant women and the mother's life exception. But if i as a woman create a life i cannot undo my responsibility to that life by running around screaming "I could die"

secularprolife.org said...

So you would permit abortion in the case of rape?

secularprolife.org said...

And as women are also innocent human beings, the law of the land must protect us by allowing safe legal abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

I would say abortion is far less violent than child birth... Also it is much safer for the woman- not that you care about her at all. You just want to make sure the little sIut is punished because she dared to have sex for a reason besides baby making.

secularprolife.org said...

Giving up sex for life is not a realistic option for any couple in a normal relationship.

secularprolife.org said...

If you don't want to have to undergo the misery of pregnancy the only option to end the pregnancy is abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

that is maybe the most offensive thing I have read. You are saying that sex selective abortion....abortion just because a girl is a girl is ok because it furthers the pro choice cause, and it really doesn't matter to you since it is girls from other ethnicities that are being killed. Racist!

secularprolife.org said...

Oh please. All that these bans do is profile Asian women, which is racist as fuck.

Sex selective abortion is just a symptom of overlying misogyny. And girls are aborted or infanticided because people like you don't want them to have any reproductive freedom once they hit puberty. Making girls subservient to their biology is what dehumanizes them, and if your culture perceives them as worthless broodmares, of course more females than males will be aborted.

And I don't believe for a second that anti choices really care about unborn female fetuses. This is just another wedge issue to ban abortion outright. It is a cynical move, an exploitative one, no less, just like PL exploits the disabled, then cuts social and medical programs once they are born.

secularprolife.org said...

If the eclampsia occurs post-viability, the solution is to deliver the baby and try to save both mother and child.

If it occurs pre-viability, then the principle of double effect comes into play: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/ (see #3 under "Applications")

secularprolife.org said...

The doctrine of double-effect is a religious doctrine, which allows medical staff in Catholic hospitals to act to save women's lives, albeit by mutilating them without any medical necessity - for example, as you appear to be proposing, performing a hysterectomy on a woman who needs an abortion.

So much for this blog being for secular prolifers...

secularprolife.org said...

Feminists for Life would disagree with you (as would the early feminists, as they were also anti-abortion): http://www.feministsforlife.org/

I think the solution is to try and save BOTH mother and child. They are both valuable human beings.

I also dispute your assertion that "Without access to safe legal abortion, girls and women die." For example, let's look at the stats prior to Roe v Wade:

The American Medical Association reported that the actual number of abortion-related deaths in 1950 was 263 and even those figures were dropping, with 119 deaths in 1970. (Source: Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. “Induced Termination of Pregnancy Before and After Roe v. Wade: Trends in the Mortality and Morbidity or Women,” Journal of the American Medical Association,12/9/92.)

The Alan Guttmacher Institute published stats that abortion deaths fell from around 200 in 1965 to 110 in 1967. (Source: "Abortion Providers Share Inner Conflicts,” The American Medical News, 7/12/93.)

CDC records show that beginning in 1940, the death rate from illegal abortion was falling faster than the overall maternal death rate. (Source: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: CDC Surveillance Summaries, United States 1989, Issued 1992.)

secularprolife.org said...

Well, I support a woman's right to choose. I just dispute that anyone, man or woman, has the "right to choose" to kill another innocent human being for any reason.

Why do you take offense to the term "pro-abortion"? Based on your comments, you seem to think that abortion is a perfectly moral and acceptable, even laudable choice. I don't understand your offense to the term given how you champion abortion.

I absolutely believe that women should be allowed to choose when and how many children to have. (I take great offense to people who tell me that I have too many children, for example.) However, I don't think that any man or woman should be able to kill another innocent human being in the process of making that choice.

secularprolife.org said...

It's not either/or, it's both/and. I support promoting the value of girls and women as human beings worthy of respect (which the pro-life movement is 100% about, actually -- unlike you pro-aborts, who support dehumanizing unborn children, whether male or female) AND support banning sex-selective abortion. Why are you presenting a false dilemma?

And no comments about the doctor who is in danger of losing his medical license because he refused to participate in a sex-selective abortion? I must assume, from your silence, that you support such an action (and thereby support sex-selective abortion in the process).

secularprolife.org said...

It's not a religious doctrine, it's a moral doctrine. Are you claiming that atheists can't be moral, or hold to moral doctrines? I think the good folks at Secular ProLife would vehemently dispute that assertion.

secularprolife.org said...

Feminists for Life would disagree with you

I know, and I'd happily argue it out with them, but they generally avoid engaging real feminists in debate about their belief that girls and women should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against their will. Understandable, as a belief women should be forced is incompatible with feminism.

Safe abortion (relatively safer than childbirth, as abortion statistically always is) was available in the US before Roe vs Wade. Ursula K. Le Guin, and other writers, have described how it was to obtain a safe illegal abortion in the bad old prolife days where women could be - and often were - investigated by the police for having had a miscarriage.

Access to abortion - even illegal abortion - makes

pregnancy safer for women. Safest of all is safe legal abortion that can be and will be performed in the woman's local hospital at need.

secularprolife.org said...

So someone can put a gun to your head and play Russian roulette, and that is OK, because you should not have a choice in how much risk you want or do not want to face.

secularprolife.org said...

Hm, moving the goal posts, I see. It's not "access to safe and legal" abortion that saves women, it's "access to any and all abortion, whether legal or illegal." I suppose you're a fan of Kermit Gosnell, then?

Can you explain to me how abortion, legal or illegal, is at all safe for the child who is killed? Seems to me that a procedure that is fatal nearly 100% of the time is not "safe."

As to the women of Feminists for Life, I don't doubt that they no longer choose to engage with you, given how you persist in ignoring facts and logic in favor of your own agenda of hatred and dehumanization.

secularprolife.org said...

It's not a religious doctrine

Says who? Thomas Aquinas "is credited with introducing the principle of double
effect in his discussion of the permissibility of self-defense in the
Summa Theologica" - a theological / religious text, not a moral text.

"The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the
application of the principle of double effect"

You are arguing this as a Catholic. This is supposed to be a secular blog.

secularprolife.org said...

I just dispute that anyone, man or woman, has the "right to choose" to kill another innocent human being for any reason.

So, you're in favour of forced use of human bodies in order to keep "innocent human beings" alive? Forced removal of a pint of blood as required from rare blood types? Forced removal of a kidney or half a liver? People die from not having enough blood, from not having a healthy kidney, from not having a functioning liver. You believe that people who have healthy supplies of these organs and could keep them alive, are killing those innocent human beings and should be forced to use their bodies against their will to keep them alive?

Do you believe that?

If you don't, why do you make a woman's uterus - indeed, her whole body when she's pregnant - your big exception to "no forced use of someone else's body"?

secularprolife.org said...

How, moving the goalposts?

You point out that pre Roe vs Wade., when safe-ish illegal abortion was available to most women, most women did not die in pregnancy. True: they had access to abortion. Is that your justification for trying to make abortion illegal - that you prefer for women to have to go to clinics run by men like Kermit Gosnell?

Can you explain to me how abortion, legal or illegal, is at all safe for the child who is killed?

When a child is pregnant, surely you recognise it is far safer for the child to have an abortion than to risk the child dying in pregnancy - as is very, very likely when a child is trying to endure pregnancy?

Or were you hatefully, dehumanisingly, trying to equate a fertilised egg or a foetus to a child, and horrifying, dehumanisingly, trying to claim that a woman who has an abortion is "killing a child"?

secularprolife.org said...

You're engaging in the genetic fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

The moral principle of double effect is derived from the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, but it is a moral doctrine of philosophy. Religious belief is not necessary in order for the moral principle to hold true, nor is religious belief necessary to practice the doctrine. If you read the entire page (from the Stanford University Department of Philosophy -- hardly a religious institution), you'll see that the Supreme Court has invoked the principle of double effect in some of its rulings. Do you think that the U.S. Supreme Court is a religious body?

I'm curious, do you also refuse to believe in the Big Bang, since the theory was proposed by Fr. Georges Lemaitre? Do you refuse to believe in genetics due to the work of Fr. Gregor Mendel? Are atheists disallowed from studying those topics since their originators were Catholic priests?

secularprolife.org said...

There can be no respect when you argue that a woman should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will.

Doing so invariably requires dehumanising girls and woman to the level of breeding machines.

secularprolife.org said...

You're moving goalposts, and dodging the question. I never said the doctrine of double effect didn't exist - obviously it does., Catholic hospitals make use of it on a regular basis as a religious justification for providing an inadequate healthcare service to their patients. I pointed out that the doctrine of double effect is explicitly a religious doctrine, especially with regard to abortion. Your use of it demonstrates that you may be a regular commenter on what's called a "secular" prolife blog, but you cannot stay away from religion when arguing for forced use of women and girls.

And you have not answered the question - perhaps I phrased it unclearly?

Why should a woman who needs an abortion because her pregnancy will kill her, be permanently mutilated with a hysterectomy, just because of the religious scruples of the hospital she is unfortunate enough to be a patient in?

secularprolife.org said...

That question has been covered before on this blog, multiple times. See here: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/08/bodily-autonomy-vs-womens-reality.html and here: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/02/bodily-rights-arguments-revisited.html

secularprolife.org said...

oh sorry, racist AND sexist

secularprolife.org said...

Thanks. So, like most prolifers, you think that once a girl or a woman has had sex - voluntarily or not - it's OK to force the use of her body through pregnancy and childbirth against her will, regardless of what harm this does to her.

Like all prolifers, when it comes down to it: you're anti-sex.

secularprolife.org said...

I prefer that women not seek abortion at all. If they do seek abortion, and it is unfortunately legal, then I think that the facilities should be held to the same safety standards as other medical facilities. Quite often, they are not (see Gosnell).

A child is killed in abortion. That's evident. Even pro-choice people acknowledge that: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/ If a very young teen is pregnant, that is a tragedy, and there are two victims in that situation. However, the solution is not to kill one to save the other if it can be helped. The solution is to try to save them BOTH.

The fact that you have to resort to hypothetical, rare, hard cases to justify abortion is very telling. I'm curious, would you support a ban on abortion that had exceptions for rape/incest and life of the mother?

secularprolife.org said...

In summary - thanks for the links - you stand by the usual prolife belief that once a girl or a woman has had sex, she is no longer "innocent human life" and it's OK to force the use of her body through pregnancy and childbirth against her will.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't argue that a woman should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will. That is a strawman.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm curious. If you think that women needing abortion should get to have abortions in clinics held to proper medical standards (as the prolife authorties in Philadelphia failed to do with Kermit Gosnell) how can you possibly think it's "unfortunate" that abortion is legal? If abortion is illegal, then all women who need abortions will end up having to use clinics run by doctors like Gosnell.

Why is that what you want?

secularprolife.org said...

Demonstate it.

Or do you not know how in patriarchal cultures, such as Pakistan and parts of India, women have only three uses:

1) baby maker (the man needs an heir)

2) home maker (slave labour)

3) sex toy

Give girls an education, and give them control over their reproductive lives.

Explain how that is racist and sexist. Demonstrate it, with logic.

secularprolife.org said...

I never said that you said it doesn't exist. Are you even reading my responses? I'm saying that it is a moral principle that can be practiced without religious belief, as is evident by the Supreme Court invoking it in their decisions. Again, do you refuse to study or consider the Big Bang theory, or genetics, since both were originated by Catholic priests?

Your question demonstrates that you don't understand the principle of double effect. A hysterectomy would only be medically indicated for a condition such as a cancerous uterus. You could not morally perform on a hysterectomy on a woman who "just wanted an abortion."

secularprolife.org said...

Of course you do. No abortion for rape victims, remember. Illegal.

secularprolife.org said...

No, I'm not saying that. Read the articles.

secularprolife.org said...

Nowhere in any of your comments have I got any impression that what you argue for is for all girls and women to have free access to safe legal abortion on demand.

So, your claim that you don't want a woman to be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will fails at the first test: if you're not willing for a woman who wants an abortion to have one, safely, legally, freely, you do want her to be forced, against her will.

secularprolife.org said...

yes and so you say that it is ok to perpetuate this by having sex selective abortions

secularprolife.org said...

I think it's unfortunate that abortion is legal because abortion kills an innocent human being.

I think it is unfortunate that, if abortion were not legal, women would seek unsafe, illegal abortion. It's very unfortunate when people make bad choices, especially when those choices end in tragedy. But I don't find it logical to enable people to safely make bad choices. I'd rather provide them viable alternatives to the bad choice.

secularprolife.org said...

"I never said that you said it doesn't exist."

You asked me if I disbelieved in the Big Bang "since the theory was proposed by Fr. Georges Lemaitre" or in genetics, based on the work of Fr Mendel. So you were trying to argue I claimed the doctrine of double effect didn't exist. It does: it's a religious doctrine, unlike physics or genetics, both of which are science.

You could not morally perform on a hysterectomy on a woman who "just wanted an abortion."

I agree. And yet, full hysterectomy instead of abortion is precisely what is proposed in #3 under "Applications" on the Stamford page you linked me to, in answer to my point that denying abortion to a woman in pre-eclampsia will kill her.

secularprolife.org said...

and that alternative whether you like it or not will be illegal unsafe abortion and women will be harmed and some will die not that you care

secularprolife.org said...

In the case of rape, I do believe it is wrong to punish one of the victims of the rape for the rape itself. An unborn child is just as much a victim as the woman who was violated. I also believe that women shouldn't be allowed to kill their rapists if not in self-defense (e.g., vigilante justice). Does that mean I support "forcing a woman to go through the pain and hardship of a criminal trial"?

secularprolife.org said...

So, in short, you prefer clinics run by Kermit Gosnells to safe, legal abortion performed in proper hospitals or clinics.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't think anyone should be allowed to kill innocent human beings, no, especially to punish them for the crime of their biological father. Again, I find it interesting that you must resort to hard cases to justify abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

yes it means that you believe that if someone is born with a uterus that they are then obligated to give birth no matter the circumstances of conception

Sounds like rape apology to me. You support a rapists right to impregnate women at will.

secularprolife.org said...

I did. That is the basis of their argument - that it's okay to force women (or, as you have just suggested, force women to use clinics run by men like Gosnell) when the woman has has sex. Apparently having sex means, in your view, that women no longer have the right or the responsibility to decide how many children to have, and when.

Needless to say, I disagree.

secularprolife.org said...

No, I asked if you REFUSED TO STUDY OR ACKNOWLEDGE the Big Bang.

Please actually read my comments.

Do you realize what an "example" is? #3 under "Applications" is an EXAMPLE of how the principle of double effect would be applied. It is not the ONLY application, just one of many.

Although it does explain why your reading comprehension and logical reasoning are so poor.

secularprolife.org said...

To profile women, mainly Asian women, is racist.

And the ONLY reason pro life opposes sex selective abortion is to ban all abortion incrementally. It is a cynical ploy, and it won't end misogyny. Denying women abortion is misogynist.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, that is unfortunate that people make bad choices. I do care, and I will work hard to make sure that women know they have alternatives so they don't make bad choices. However, "women will make bad choices if they can't kill human beings" is not a justification to make killing human beings legal.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope, I prefer that abortion is illegal, across the board.

secularprolife.org said...

So, you believe that forced use of girls and women's bodies is perfectly okay, even when that means forcing rape vics through pregnancy and childbirth against their will.

Why do you think it's OK to force raped girls to have babies?

I don't have to resort to hard cases to justify abortion, Jo Anna. I think forced use of other human being's bodies is always wrong, just as slavery and rape are always wrong.

Using hard cases points up to you how inhumanly cruel your support of forced use of girls and woman is.

secularprolife.org said...

hm, sounds like your belief that if someone is born with a uterus they are obligated to abort the unborn child.

(I didn't realize this was "Make Up Stupid Strawman Arguments Day! What fun!)

secularprolife.org said...

No, it is not. You have very poor reading comprehension.

secularprolife.org said...

of course you do not care if women die you only care about fetuses

secularprolife.org said...

Why do you think it's okay to punish the secondary victims of rape for the rape itself? Do you like punishing rape victims?

secularprolife.org said...

I care about them both.

secularprolife.org said...

The example of forcing a hysterectomy on a woman who only needed an abortion is the example you pointed out, in justification of your belief that a woman dying of pre-eclampsia mustn't be allowed to have an abortion.



As a Catholic hospital found when the local bishop excommunicated a nun who approved an ethical abortion on a woman dying of pre-eclampsia, the doctrine of "double effect" is never used to save a woman's life. The hospital is no longer Catholic, and the bishop said the woman would be better dead than have her life saved by abortion.



My point is: this is a religious doctrine you're citing, on what is supposedly a secular blog.

secularprolife.org said...

if someone is born with a uterus they have the right not to be treated as reproductive objects by you and by rapists

secularprolife.org said...

So your preference is: women die of eclampsia, because abortion is illegal: women die of molar pregnancies or ectopic pregnancies, because abortion is illegal: women die of cancer, because they can't have chemotherapy, because abortion is illegal. You prefer these deaths, and you prefer that profiteering doctors running unsafe illegal practices - like Kermit Gosnell - should flourish.

Prolife=pro death. Prolife=pro Gosnell. Prolife=pro force.

secularprolife.org said...

I know people who would rather kill themselves then be forced to give birth, nothing you could say or do would stop them if they are denied abortion. You don't care about both because you would rather a woman commit suicide than have a safe legal abortion

secularprolife.org said...

Er, you're the one arguing for punishing and dehumanising rape victims by forcing them through pregnancy and childbirth against their will. I think every rape vic should get emergency contraception as soon as possible, and if that doesn't work (but hopefully it will) she gets to choose to have an abortion, if and when she wants one.

But that's because I oppose forced use of other human beings, unlike prolifers, who elevate forced use to a moral value.

secularprolife.org said...

I do believe it is wrong to punish one of the victims of the rape for the rape itself


How is a fetus a victim of a rape? I mean, does existence victimize it? Surely life is a gift, courtesy of the rapist making the decision to rape the woman, yes?

secularprolife.org said...

No, it's an example how double effect would be invoked in a situation (as an example) where a pregnant woman needs a life-saving treatment that could kill the unborn child.

Why are you committing libel against Bishop Olmsted? Can you please provide a citation to where he said that "the woman would be better off dead"? A direct quote, please.

Yes, double effect is sometimes used in Catholic hospitals. But again, just because a principle can be used by religious people does not mean that it cannot also be used by atheists (unless you are trying to claim that atheists cannot hold to moral principles).

secularprolife.org said...

Nope, I have excellent reading comprehension. That you're driven to that argument strongly suggests you have never thought through a morality that says it's not okay to take a pint of blood from someone against their will even to save a life, but it is okay to force a woman through pregnancy and childbirth against her will, on the grounds that if she isn't so forced, the fertilised egg will not be gestated into a baby.

secularprolife.org said...

in case you had not noticed, brace yourself for this, Pro-lifers oppose ALL abortions! Sex selective abortions are particularly hineous because they target one segment of the population merely for the fact that they are girls. When you allow this to happen you add to the discrimination validating in fact the idea that girls are not even worthy to be born, but boys are.

secularprolife.org said...

You opposed "the forced use of other human beings," but not the killing of innocent human beings? That strikes me as odd. Are there any other contexts in which you believe that it's acceptable to kill an innocent human being, or is pregnancy the only one?

An unborn child is not a rapist, nor is he enslaving the woman for his own gain. He's just as much a victim of the rape as the mother. Why do you believe otherwise?

secularprolife.org said...

Because the unborn child is not a rapist, nor is he enslaving the woman for his own gain. Pregnancy is a natural phenomenon in which an innocent bystander is invited into existence by the body’s natural functions. He is not to blame for the fact that those natural functions were not consensual.

secularprolife.org said...

Question for you. Let's say I donate a kidney to a friend or relative. After three months, I decide that I really want my kidney back. Am I within my rights to demand that my friend or relative have their kidney surgically removed and re-implanted in me?

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, which means that you are cynically exploiting female fetuses in an attempt to incrementally ban all abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

Because the unborn child is not a rapist, nor is he enslaving the woman for his own gain.

Yeah, the prenate kind of is. The prenate is biologically programmed to extract as many resources from the woman's body as possible. It is exploitation, whether the prenate intends to or not. Nature is not pretty.

The woman is not to blame either, but you would punish her for being raped.

secularprolife.org said...

I beg the Bishop's pardon! (Well, I do if he's reading this comments-thread, which seems unlikely.) It wasn't Bishop Olmsted who argued that it wasn't worth saving a woman's life by performing an abortion.

It was Rev. John Ehrich, the medical ethics director for the Diocese of Phoenix, who argued that "the end" (saving the woman's life) did not justify "the means" (an abortion).

Ehrich said: "She consented in the murder of an unborn child. There are some situations where the mother may in fact die along with her child. But — and this is the Catholic perspective — you can't do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means."

You are still trying to argue that the doctrine of double-effect is not religious?

secularprolife.org said...

You actively endorse the killing of innocent human beings by denial of safe legal abortion. And you happily promote the forced use of innocent human beings through pregnancy and childbirth.

I'd say "that strikes me as odd", but I've argued with a lot of prolifers, and your love of force, dehumanisation of women, and callousness about the death of innocent human beings, no longer strikes me as odd: just an example of the awfulness that humans are capable of.

Your attempt to make forcing a rape victim through pregnancy and childbirth morally justifiable by claiming that the egg fertilised by the rapist is ethically entitled to forced gestation in the rape victim's body, that not to force the rape vic to gestate the egg fertlised by the rapist is somehow "punishing the unborn child", is ... well, a strange, strange, inhuman and callous argument, only possible from someone who really does not see rape victims as human beings.

And so, goodbye.

secularprolife.org said...

Interestingly, the unborn child also gives health benefits to the mother, so your supposition is not accurate. See here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain/
Also, by your logic, every woman should have an abortion, since unborn children are "biologically programmed to extract as many resources from the woman's body as possible." Sounds like pregnancy is a pretty terrible thing, in your view. Why not kill every unborn child who is exploiting his or her mother?

secularprolife.org said...

The cons outweigh the pros. And the very thing that might give 'health benefits' can also kill.

secularprolife.org said...

So, you admit to lying earlier. Neither Bp. Olmsted nor Rev. Ehrich said that "the woman would be better off dead." In fact he did not use those words at all.

Congratulations, you've just destroyed any last shred of credibility that you may have possessed, since you've shown you're willing to lie to defend your beliefs.

And yes, it is a Catholic moral principle that we may not commit evil (killing an innocent child) so that good may result. If we did not have that principle, all manner of things could be justified (killing children living in poverty so they are no longer "suffering," for example). However, in the case you're citing, the hospital did not invoke the principle of double effect, as they could have, to save the mother. Nor did they seek a treatment that has a 100% success rate in curing PIH: http://www.wisn.com/Doctor-Gives-Hope-To-Pregnant-Women-With-Heart-Condition/8079188
Why do you think that the doctors, who are in the business of saving lives, should not have tried to save both the mother and child?

Are you still trying to argue that atheists cannot hold to moral principles, even ones that were derived from (but do not require) religious belief? I know many atheists who would object to that assertion.

secularprolife.org said...

I see both rape victims and children conceived in rape as human beings. Sadly, you only see the former and not the latter. Maybe you should do some research into some of the people that you wish were dead. For example: http://www.theradiancefoundation.org/ryan/

Once again... it's not either/or, but both/and.

secularprolife.org said...

I am simply asking your questions for clarification of your stance. I did not say that you believe all children should be aborted, I asked IF that was your belief. It's certainly logically consistent with what you've said so far.

"it is not up to you, Joanna, to decide that a rape victim should risk her life and health for the unborn human created through rape. ONLY the rape victim can decide. She lives her life, not you."

And yet you don't extend the same courtesy to the unborn child, who did not ask to be conceived in terrible circumstances. Why can you decide that he or she can be killed? Shouldn't you let him or her live his or her own life?

The risk of death to an unborn child from abortion is very nearly 100%. The risk of death to a pregnant woman is very, very small. Why does the nearly 100% risk of death for the child not outweigh the tiny risk of death for the mother?

secularprolife.org said...

No Joanna, it isn't logically consistent. As has been repeatedly explained to you, we don't force people to risk their life, health and overall wellbeing on behalf of another. Even if that means that a life can be preserved. You can't even be forced to give blood or bone marrow, even if that would save the life of a 5 year old dying from leukemia.


Or do you think that you should be legally obligated to donate bone marrow to save the lives of dying 5 year olds?

secularprolife.org said...

Are you claiming that I said the above? I did not, and I think those words used to describe women who abort are horrid and awful. I also think that it is morally and legally wrong to refuse treatment to someone in need, regardless of how they were injured.

I think it's horrible and tragic that women make bad choices that endanger their lives. But that does not mean I think those bad choices should therefore be legal, especially when it involves the death of another human being.

Also, let's look at the stats from the "good old days," shall we?

The American Medical Association reported that the actual number of abortion-related
deaths in 1950 was 263 and even those figures were dropping, with 119 deaths in 1970. (Source: Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. “Induced Termination of Pregnancy Before and After Roe v. Wade: Trends in the Mortality and Morbidity or Women,” Journal of the American Medical Association,12/9/92.)

The Alan Guttmacher Institute published stats that abortion deaths fell from around 200 in 1965 to 110 in 1967. (Source: "Abortion Providers Share Inner Conflicts,” The American Medical News, 7/12/93.)

CDC records show that beginning in 1940, the death rate from illegal abortion was falling faster than the overall maternal death rate. (Source: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: CDC Surveillance Summaries, United States 1989, Issued 1992.)

secularprolife.org said...

Short version:

"yeah yeah, some women will die from unsafe illegal abortion, but hey, the lives of fetuses are more valuable than the life of a suicidal raped 13 year old"

secularprolife.org said...

Two points, then I really need to sign off for a while and get some work done.

1. There is a moral and medical distinction to be made between pregnancy *itself* and the *complications* that can arise while pregnant. No one actually "dies" from "pregnancy" (you won't see "pregnancy" by itself on a death certificate as the cause of death) but complications arising while pregnant can put women at risk of death. The medical response ought to be to do all possible to resolve the *complications*, not end the pregnancy, since there are two human beings involved, not just one.

2. Morally, your comment presupposes a potential unjust aggressor placing the woman's life at risk. Responses to unjust aggressors are supposed to be proportionate to the aggression. Abortion isn't a "proportionate" response because it's the complications--not the baby--comprising the aggression. But even if that point is conceded, one doesn't merely go around killing people who might harm them but haven't yet harmed them. You don't gun down a neighbor just because you think he/she might someday get mad enough to kill you.

secularprolife.org said...

Pregnancy by it's very nature is dangerous. Evolution is a tinkerer, not a designer. The dangers of pregnancy are part and parcel of the whole thing, and the risk is *always* there.


Yes, the fetus is an unjust aggressor, whether it intends to hurt the woman or not. Pregnancy, if unwanted, is an intimate bodily violation, and it just happens that the *only* way to end the pregnancy is to remove the prenate from the woman's body. If there was a way to beam it out and put it into a pro-life woman, I am sure that that would be done. But there is no other alternative. The LEAST amount of force that can be used to end the violation is to remove the prenate from the uterus - and the prenate dies because it no longer has access to the woman's body. If the prenate is viable, it can be delivered, alive.

secularprolife.org said...

Hey Victoria, it's Chip! Hope you're doing well. I just wanted to say that this is an AWESOME piece. I agree with just about every word. You seem to be getting tons of comments, so I don't know if you'll even see mine, but oh well! Anyway...

I'm all for gender equality. Really I am. But my main (well, only) problem with the feminist movement is its attitude toward abortion. And it's not JUST that I disagree with abortion (I do, wholeheartedly). It's also what you said: it seems like abortion isn't even being discussed! My guess would be that pro-life feminists are a significant minority. Obviously, not all feminists are going to agree on something like abortion, but as you said, just because it's uncomfortable doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it. And again, like you said, stuff like wage gaps and stereotypes are obvious injustices and thus are easy to talk about right? Which is not to say we shouldn't talk about them, but we clearly shouldn't ignore the tougher, "cloudier" feminist issues like those you highlighted.

Anyway, that's all a fancy way of saying "I agree." Haha. But this article legitimately brightened my day, because it makes me really happy to see women, feminists, who still defend their pro-life beliefs. And I, being a male, never really feel like I have a whole lot I can say to a pro-choice woman about abortion, because who am I to disagree, right? I don't have to have the kid. So we pro-life males need strong, intelligent women like yourself to spearhead that argument for us. People like you are important, and they give me hope that maybe we can eliminate abortion someday. Thanks for the article Victoria. I'm really glad that abortion hasn't been lost on you in light of all the (admittedly still pretty awesome) Emma Watson HeForShe feminist stuff that has been in the news lately.

secularprolife.org said...

To those People down there: You are so focussed on women that you complete Forget about the children killed. If you think ypou know beeter than science because fetusses become alive at birth by magical goo oder some other pro-choice nonsense, go ahead, put your ignorance out for the world to see it. But you're saying it is better than millions of babies die cruelly by legal abortion (and a few women too, let's face it) than to save all this lives because some of this pregnancies might harm a woman with a chance even lower then getting eaten by a shark? Are you f**ing insane? What's wrong with you, apart from that it doesn't even make sense in itself, because pro-lifers support abortion to save the mothers live (but only then! and it happens near to never).

secularprolife.org said...

An archaic doctrine. And not being Catholic, it means nothing to me.

secularprolife.org said...

I must also assume that the Big Bang theory (the actual theory, not the show) and the study of genetics mean nothing to you, given that they were originated by Catholics as well.

secularprolife.org said...

Since those two things are not part of Catholic doctrine, it's not really relevant. Still going to use methotrexate instead of surgery.

secularprolife.org said...

You are still conflating the "dangers" of pregnancy with pregnancy itself.
You also assume that whether the physical presence of the "prenate" is an intimate violation is dependent not on any objective condition, but on a subjective "want" for the pregnancy.

You're also (incorrectly) concluding that the proximate amount of force is to kill, when this is not supported by the evidence of doctors who successfully treat complications of pregnancy without killing.

secularprolife.org said...

Are you saying that atheists are not allowed to adhere to moral doctrine if that moral doctrine happens to also exist within Catholic moral teaching?
There are prohibitions against theft and murder in Catholic moral teaching. Are those also not relevant to you? Are atheists disallowed (in your view) from adhering to those moral precepts since they are also found within Catholic doctrine?

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, the idea of having safe abortions so that women will not have illegal ones and become harmed is kind of like having safe rape houses so the abuser will not be harmed (say, by an unwanted STD). That would be more of an accurate comparison, because in both abortion and rape one human is ALWAYS harmed by someone in a position of power. A disgusting comparison, indeed, but certainly one of the reasons we believe legal abortion to save women from illegal abortion is a strawman argument.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm not conflating anything. Pregnancy by it's very nature is not safe.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2006/09/prenatal-competition.html

http://edge.org/conversation/genomic-imprinting

http://aeon.co/magazine/science/pregnancy-is-a-battleground-between-mother-father-and-baby/

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~rogers/ant1050/Lectures/mfconflict-2x3.pdf

ou also assume that whether the physical presence of the "prenate" is an
intimate violation is dependent not on any objective condition, but on a
subjective "want" for the pregnancy.


yep. Kind of like sex is rape if you don't want a penis inside of you, non?

You're also (incorrectly) concluding that the proximate amount of force
is to kill, when this is not supported by the evidence of doctors who
successfully treat complications of pregnancy without killing.



If your body is being intimately violated without your explicit and ongoing consent, and the threat of bodily harm and death is hanging over you, even torture (labour/birth) then you would be well within your rights to use whatever means possible to end the violation - even if your attacker died as a result.

secularprolife.org said...

What about a person who would rather kill him/herself rather than raise their already-born child, and nothing would stop them from suicide unless they could kill their child? A similar predicament. Not one that justifies killing the child.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, in other words, women who choose illegal/unsafe abortion deserve what they get, even if it's death and disability, because they are acting criminally, and why should we care about any harm that comes to a criminal, right?

secularprolife.org said...

Nope, because your born child isn't intimately violating your body. And if you really don't want to raise your kid, you can drop it off at an EMS, a fire station, a police station, a hospital, or give it up for adoption.



We don't force people to parent.


The reason pregnant people who do not want to be pregnant will kill themselves - me included - is because people like you would force us to undergo what to us is TORTURE on behalf of another. I am sorry, but I am not a mindless incubator, and if you objectify me in service of a fetus I will put a bullet in my brain.

secularprolife.org said...

I never said anyone was disallowed from anything. But I don't see why I should be cut open if I have an ectopic pregnancy when a non-invasive method is available. At the very least I should be given a choice, and my conscience should take precedence over that of the doctor's. It seems pointless for a pregnancy that is doomed, and I'm not sacrificing my fallopian tube or uterus to principle.

secularprolife.org said...

People who were talking about the Savita situation in Ireland and saying that inducing labor would've been immoral claimed that double effect would've allowed for the removal of her uterus. In other words, they would've punished her miscarriage by making it impossible for her to have any more children.

secularprolife.org said...

You are still conflating the "dangers" of pregnancy with pregnancy itself.
No, your analogy fails. For sex to be rape, there has to be an aggressor who consciously and deliberately rejects your refusal. An unborn child is not an aggressor. Whether or not the sex is consensual has no bearing on if the biological process of conception occurs as a result.

You're incorrect on point three, too. Criminal law states that you can't kill someone just because you think they MIGHT kill you, or that there is some sort of risk that they may harm you in the future. For the right of self-defense in killing an aggressor, you must demonstrate *imminent threat* AND reasonable fear of harm (both, not just one). Neither of these are true in the case of a normal, uncomplicated pregnancy -- neither of them are true in the case of a pregnancy with complications, either. If someone believes that pregnancy = instant death, then that's irrational tokophobia.

secularprolife.org said...

Thank you for acknowledging that the principle of double effect is not solely a Catholic doctrine.

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, prolifers value sex far more highly than pro-choicers.

Women are strong. We are strong enough to employ mind over body, a skill many people admire. We have to ability to choose with whom we have sex. We are strong enough to choose a partner who supports our selection of birth control (whether that partner is for one night or for a long term commitment). We are strong enough to have "that conversation" about birth control before we engage in sex.

Women are powerful. We have the ability to chose when we have sex. We can be aware enough and informed enough about our own bodies to know (mostly) when the highest risk exists. If we are "in the moment" and realize we do not have birth control, we are STILL strong enough to say no IN THAT MOMENT in favour of another moment when we are prepared.

Our culture has taken the power out of sex. Sex is the only entirely natural act that can actually create human life. An enormous responsibility. Sex can be beautiful, powerful, fun (and funny), and recreational. It is inherently procreational, though that is OBVIOUSLY not the only reason to engage in it. But because it is procreational, we can choose to use our strength and power to harness, to the best of our ability, that inherent quality of it.

I will teach my beautiful daughters that they are stronger than culture (and current feminists) believe. That they control when, where, how, and with whom they share their bodies. And that in those powerful choices, when ANOTHER HUMAN is created, they are now powerful enough to make choices that protect themselves AND the human they created.

Don't think I can't imagine the cost. But the cost is not the point. We women, we are far stronger than we are given credit for.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, we can certainly agree on one thing. Someone that is that selfish should most definitely not be a parent.

secularprolife.org said...

No, that's not accurate. First off, Savita died of septicaemia, an infection that developed from a miscarriage, and E. coli ESBL. Abortion is not a cure for septicaemia.

Secondly, if she was suffering from a condition that could only be resolved by ending the pregnancy, then induction of labor with the intent of removing the placenta would have been sufficient, even if the death of the baby (due to non-viability) was a tragic if foreseen consequence of that induction.

secularprolife.org said...

Unless it's your pregnancy, you don't get to decide what health risks someone else should be willing to assume. Only they can do that.

secularprolife.org said...

I have said in a previous post, there is no analogy that is exactly accurate. So not every facet of an analogy is applicable.

secularprolife.org said...

You are still conflating the "dangers" of pregnancy with pregnancy itself.

That is not a refutation. Read the links. You might learn something.

For sex to be rape, there has to be an aggressor who consciously and
deliberately rejects your refusal. An unborn child is not an aggressor.


Nope, culpability is irrelevant. Unless of course you think that you can't remove a parasite from your intestines, since it isn't consciously violating your body?

And by your standards, it would be acceptable for people to force you to donate bone marrow to an unconscious person, and you would not be permitted to withdraw from the donation, because the unconscious person in need of your bone marrow is not consciously using your body without your consent.

For the right of self-defense in killing an aggressor, you must demonstrate *imminent threat* AND reasonable fear of harm


If something or someone is in your body without your explicit and ongoing consent, you are within your rights to remove them, even if they will die upon being removed from your body. And even if they are not consciously trying to hurt you.

secularprolife.org said...

She was in active miscarriage. Nothing to do with ending the pregnancy--the ending was already inevitable. There was no reason not to complete the miscarriage. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and Jill Stanek, however, maintained that inducing labor would've amounted to an abortion. From the SPUC's website:

In contrast, an intention specifically to expel a pre-viable child, perhaps without the intention to kill the child, is impossible to justify, as witnessed by Church teaching over the past hundred years and more (carefully tracked by John Connery S.J. in his book Abortion: the Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective). Abortion is not always defined by the Church in terms of deliberate killing, but sometimes in terms of deliberate expulsion or "acceleration of birth" before viability, which has been excluded even for the good end of promoting a woman’s health. Good ends must be promoted by good means, which good doctors can and must employ.
Where the woman’s own body needs treatment of a kind which does not target the presence of her child, all would agree that such treatment ought to be provided. That could include the giving of antibiotics or blood transfusions, the clamping of the woman’s blood vessels to prevent bleeding, hysterectomies for uterine cancer and, for ectopic pregnancy, the removal of a damaged fallopian tube. Irrespective of the unborn child’s continued presence, the damaged tube or uterus would need to be removed: an operation which targets the woman's body alone, and is therefore legitimate, despite its impact on the child.


http://spuc-director.blogspot.com/2012_11_18_archive.html

http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/11/pro-life-blog-buzz-11-16-12/

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, it is a refutation. Your stance is that pregnancy, by its very nature, is deadly, that it is intrinsically deadly. That is not true. Complications of pregnancy are deadly. Pregnancy itself is not. I can attest to this with personal experience.

Culpability is entirely relevant. An aggressor is someone who hears the refusal, understands the refusal, and actively and deliberately ignores the refusal. An unborn child does not do this. There has to be a conscious choice to be an aggressor, to violate the autonomy of another. What choice did the fetus have to be created? If someone is an unjust aggressor, then they are engaging in some kind of activity that they ought not be engaging in. What is the activity that the unborn is engaging in that it ought not to be? If the fetus does not belong in its mother's womb, where does the fetus belong?

A parasite is not an organism of the species homo sapiens, so it does not belong in my body. Proof: http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/

Cancer =/= pregnancy, so your bone marrow analogy fails. Plus, organ donation is an extraordinary means of keeping someone alive. Pregnancy is the ordinary means of keeping an unborn child alive. See above.

Murder of an innocent human being is never justified, and murder of a human being who is an unjust aggressor (which an unborn child is not, see above) is only justified if there is imminent danger and reasonable fear of harm.

secularprolife.org said...

The hospital staff could have (and should have) "completed the miscarriage," as you say, by inducing labor, and they were well within their rights to do so by all of their medical guidelines. But even that would not have cured sepsis.

I'm not sure if you realize, but "inducing labor" is not direct abortion if the intent is not to kill the child (but rather expel the placenta). It's indirect abortion, which is morally permissible under the principle of double effect. Direct abortion would be fetal dismemberment, or directly attacking the child in some other way. Inducing labor with the intent of removing the placenta and saving the child, if at all possible (however remote the possibility) is indirect abortion -- which was, again, acceptable under hospital regulations. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/no-confusion-says-top-consultant-28922817.html#ixzz2Cq4XkNYo

secularprolife.org said...

So you don't think they deserve death or disability for engaging in the criminal act of unsafe illegal abortion?


Why are you concerned about the lives of baby killers?

secularprolife.org said...

1) not all doctors will perform one unless the woman already has 3 kids and is past the age of 30


2) that's not gonna help rape victims is it, unless you think that girls should get a tubal ligation and or hysterectomy prior to reaching puberty?


3) the uterus serves functions besides gestation - it holds the other organs up, and has a role in sexual pleasure


4) reproductive freedom is about having children WHEN and IF you want them. a woman might want to be pregnant some day, she may want to space her children instead of having them whenever 'nature' decides

secularprolife.org said...

I think that goes into the same box as your trying to pronounce judgement on my moral credibility after the horrifying things you've endorsed here today, don't you?

secularprolife.org said...

A very privileged, narrow-minded point of view: no concern for girls or women who are raped, no concern for girls or women who live in places where they don't have access to birth control, no concern for girls or women in abusive relationships, no concern for ... well, anyone outside your narrow little circle. Very prolife.

secularprolife.org said...

Pregnancy by it's very nature is not a state of health. The default state of women is NOT pregnancy. And every pregnancy has the potential to maim and kill. Birth itself can be hours to days of torturous pain, and can end in death, disability or permanent injury. The fact is, you don't get to make medical decisions for people who are not you.

No, culpability is irrelevant. By that logic, a cognitively disabled person should have a right to rape you, because they do not know what they are doing, due to having the mental age of a toddler. By that logic, you can't eject a nematode worm from your body, because it isn't consciously attacking you.

If the fetus does not belong in its mother's womb, where does the fetus belong?

Naturalistic fallacy. You really need to stop with these. You are arguing that the prenate has a right to the woman's body because the woman was born with a uterus. That is pure objectification. You were born with a vagina, that doesn't give rapists a right to use your vagina without your consent, just because vaginas were made for peens.

Cancer =/= pregnancy, so your bone marrow analogy fails

We are talking about the forceable use of your body to preserve the life of another. And bone marrow is not an organ, it regenerates. The fetus takes nutrients from the woman's body - from her very bones. If the fetus is taking calcium from the woman, then why doesn't an unconscious 5 year old, once hooked up to you, have the right to take your bone marrow?

Pregnancy is the ordinary means of keeping an unborn child alive.

Naturalistic fallacy

Murder of an innocent human being is never justified, and murder of a
human being who is an unjust aggressor (which an unborn child is not,
see above) is only justified if there is imminent danger and reasonable
fear of harm.


Right. So if that 5 year old needs your bone marrow to survive, and they are unconscious and not aggressing against you, you have no right to unhook your body from them. That would be unjust killing, by your standards.

secularprolife.org said...

I see that you edited your post. No, it is not selfish to deny anyone or anything the use of your body for their own benefit.


Unless you think that you should be forced to donate your bone marrow to save the life of a 5 year old dying from leukemia?

secularprolife.org said...

I'm sorry to hear that the idea of all human beings having inherent worth, dignity, and intrinsic value regardless of their age, sex, location, or stage of development is "horrifying" to you.

secularprolife.org said...

It's obvious you're refusing to even read my posts anymore (example: I refuted your claim of the naturalistic fallacy and explained in detail why it is not a naturalistic fallacy). I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.

secularprolife.org said...

You did not refute anything. Your argument is that pregnancy is good and healthy because it is natutal and that anything bad is unnatural, such as cancer.

A naturalistic fallacy is also created when you try to draw ethical rules from nature - such as, the uterus was made for the prenate, therefore, the prenate is entitled to the woman's body.

You should re - read the Princeton link on the naturalistic fallacy, since you clearly did not understand it.

secularprolife.org said...

Different. That five year old, while tragic, is not the result of your choice (I'm speaking of consensual sex, here).

And it is still selfish. As all rights, the right to bodily autonomy has a responsibility, and that responsibility starts with the life of the one conceived.

secularprolife.org said...

1) True. Perhaps that would be an issue for pro-choicers to take up.

2) Also true. And horribly, horribly sad and unfair. I do believe in the case of rape someone should die. It just isn't the unborn who never asked to be conceived in the first place.

3) Does it? I know several people who have had hysterectomies young - good friends, actually. All have been quite pleased with the results. None have complained about their sexual pleasure.

4) "Nature" doesn't have to decide if one uses appropriate contraception. And if such contraception fails, once again, the conceived life is still a human. Shouldn't be blamed for showing up where it belongs.

secularprolife.org said...

Is a 5 year old less valuable than a fetus?

Or do you just want to punish women for having non procreative sex?

Either way, special pleading for fetuses.

Oh, do you permit a rape exception?

secularprolife.org said...

Oh. So you don't believe in a rape exception.

Is a rape victim selfish if she would rather die than give birth?

Since the rape victim is not responsible for the prenates existence, yet you still think she owes it her body ( and her health and possibly her life), then by that logic, everyone should be legally obligated to donate bone marrow to sick kids, don't you agree?

secularprolife.org said...

What is genuinely horrifying to me is that you've absorbed "prolife" thinking to such an extent that you genuinely seem to think, as you've told me several times in various ways today:

- forcing a girl or a woman through pregnancy and childbirth against her will shows you respect the "worth, dignity, and intrinsic value" of the foetus she's carrying - and she herself doesn't matter at all

-forcing a rape victim through pregnancy and childbirth against her will shows you respect the "worth, dignity, and intrinsic value" of the egg fertilised by the rapist's sperm - and the rape victim herself doesn't matter at all

-forcing a girl or a woman whose pregnancy has gone wrong and is endangering her health or her life to continue the pregnancy, shows you respect the "worth, dignity, and intrinsic value" of the foetus, while the health and human rights of the pregnant girl or woman don't matter at all

-forcing a girl or a woman to have to use clinics run by profiteering criminals like Doctor Gosnell, because in forcing a girl or a woman who needs an abortion to have to have her abortion unsafely and dangerously, you show you respect the "worth, dignity, and intrinsic value" of the foetus - and quite evidently, don't believe that girls and women who need abortions have any worth, dignity, and intrinsic value at all.

All of these things are horrifying to me, and that you've allowed yourself to believe that in endorsing death and suffering for girls and woman you are morally superior, because ... well, apparently because you think moral superiority is derived from mouthing platitudes about foetuses while endorsing suffering and death for pregnant girls and women.



Very prolife.

secularprolife.org said...

Luckily, anyone who is tempted to believe your strawmen can read my actual comments, and see that you are (as you have already admitted) a liar.

secularprolife.org said...

Privileged, indeed. If only pro-lifers and pro-choicers could together put resources, time, and effort into getting to the guts of the problem, developing teaching of contraception, self-worth, and the strength of true bodily autonomy. Perhaps then abortions would be less necessary.

It is regrettable that you assume these views are narrow-minded and lack concern for others. It seems to me this is the agenda we should push, together - an agenda of women's solidarity and strength. It is an agenda I have taught to people outside of my "narrow little circle". It is an agenda that requires FAR more concern and effort than simply providing abortions. I would assume that you, as I, care deeply about women and our rights and needs and the suppression of our strength. I wish we could at least agree on that.

secularprolife.org said...

And anyone who is tempted to believe you can read your actual comments advocating what I've outlined - and also see that your only debate tactic defending these monstrous prolife policies is to accuse others of lying.

secularprolife.org said...

"Women will always die from pregnancy." Which does not have anything to do with abortion with all. You know, because the very low risk of pregnancy is exactly the same for planned and unplanned children either. So in fact, the only possible measure concerning abortions are life-of-mother-exemptions. Other than this, banning the infanticide of the unborn or not does exactly nothing concerning maternal deaths, but a lot concerning dead children.

secularprolife.org said...

Doesn't matter if its low risk. The risk is still there. And women still die from pregnancy, because it is impossible to predict and prevent all pregnancy related death and disability.

An abortion isn't going to save a woman if she bleeds to death from post partum hemorrhage is it?

secularprolife.org said...

Lying again, I see. Well, as you say, people can read the comment thread and decide for themselves.

secularprolife.org said...

Hi Chip! It's good to hear from you, I hope you're doing well! Your comment made my day :) Thank you for actually understanding the whole point of this article, which I think got lost in the whole abortion rights debate below. I completely understand your point about feeling powerless in your arguments against abortion since you are male. However, if feminists such as Emma Watson are calling for men to also consider themselves feminists, then I think it's fair to say that men have a say in all issues, including abortion. Thanks again for your comment!
-Victoria

secularprolife.org said...

Not that it really matters, but I wrote the article for my own personal reasons and didn't realize I was getting paid until after it was submitted.
And actually, everyone is completely missing the point of the article, which is to call more people to talk about the uncomfortable stuff and to invite pro-life feminists to participate in the discussion as well, particularly because they don't tend to shy away from the hard questions.

secularprolife.org said...

did you even read my article? That wasn't the point at all. And I did in fact mention female infanticide, which indeed occurs after the baby is born and is included in the 200 million missing statistic that I included.
The point of feminism is that you care about the welfare of females, babies, girls, women. The only difference in prolife feminism is that we care about unborn girls too.
You can be pro-life and not be a feminist, but this article was directed towards those who are pro-life and feminist

secularprolife.org said...

you're right that some women will die from pregnancy. Actually, all women will die at some point (whaddaya know...). However, the risk of complications during birth actually increase with each abortion that you have. For an example, risk for pre-eclampsia increases, a very serious concern for pregnant women. So using your logic, by keeping abortion legal, you are denying women the right to life due to deaths by complications. You need a stronger argument that that

secularprolife.org said...

Abortion is merely an induced miscarriage, so no.

And the point is that, unlike you, we want to give women a choice. We are not interested in forcing women to abort, whereas you are interested in forcing birth.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes. I think parents need to openly speak with their children and teens about things such as STD's and unplanned pregnancy. Our youth should know that every time they have sex there is a possibility for pregnancy even while using contraceptives.


I wish that all teens and even adults would recognize that having sex is never a casual affair. There are always emotional, physical, mental and spiritual implications. This makes sex amazing in a marriage or committed relationship but also brings about complications and harm during one-night stands or casual relationships.


I think students should be taught, if you don't want to get pregnant don't have sex. Wait until you are old enough to carry the responsibility that comes with it. Since teens will still have sex regardless of this warning...they should be educated on the different types of true birth control (preventative).

secularprolife.org said...

The difference is it is ILLEGAL to kill an innocent human being. All human beings have the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Animals don't have those rights because they are NOT human.


The heart of the issue is that people are deciding the unborn human's rights based off of their size, development, dependency and viability. This is discrimination!


Are the unborn human? the answer is YES. They have human DNA and will continue to grow and develop through all the human stages of life. Are the unborn alive? Yes! They are growing, they have bodily needs and a heartbeat.

secularprolife.org said...

1) people have minds. Rights come with the possession of a mind. No mind and you are no longer a person. This is why beating heart cadavers are taken off feeding tubes and left to die. An embryo has the same brain activity as a corpse.

2) I am a human. I am alive. I am innocent. Now, does that automatically mean that I have a right to use your body without your explicit and ongoing consent, if my very life depends on it?

secularprolife.org said...

Honestly, I do not want to spend any more time debating the issue. You will continually misinterpret my words and hear what you want to hear. (I know, that in fairness you could argue the same about me) That is why I'm choosing to bow out gracefully. I'm not conceding or agreeing to your stance on when life begins but I realize my words fall upon deaf ears...I pray that God opens your eyes to the evils of abortion and draws your heart to Him.

secularprolife.org said...

I did not misinterpret anything. You have made an assertion that unborn humans are entitled to female bodies because they are alive and human.

You have failed to back up that assertion.

May God be with you.

secularprolife.org said...

Well played, JoAnna.

secularprolife.org said...

If you choose to drive to work, and someone unwittingly gets you into an accident that causes injury, that doesn't give you license to eliminate said person in order to prevent the accident.

secularprolife.org said...

Even sex isn't without physical risk. There is infection, for instance.

secularprolife.org said...

Induced abortions, surgical or medical, also pose a risk of life-threatening problems.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 683   Newer› Newest»