Pages

Friday, October 17, 2014

Abortion as a social good?

On October 13, Slate published a piece by Hannah Rosin called “Abortion is Great,” in which Rosin discusses the views of pro-choice author Katha Pollitt and explains why more pro-choicers should embrace abortion as a social good. My blog post here is my initial reactions as I read Rosin’s piece.

Rosin points out that 6 out of 10 American women who have abortions are already mothers. In my experience, many pro-lifers don’t seem to realize this, as I’ve heard so many of us talk as if pro-choice people inherently dislike kids and would be incapable of parenting. Something to think about. 
“…any woman who’s reading this piece and has had an abortion, or any man who has supported one, should go in the comments section and [tell their story], until there are so many accounts that the statement ['I had an abortion'] loses its shock value.”

She seems to neglect the many post-abortive women and men who became pro-life because of their abortion experiences. 
“…we have all essentially been brainwashed by a small minority of pro-life activists. Only 7 to 20 percent of Americans tell pollsters they want to totally ban abortion…”

Most of the pro-lifers I know, including many pro-life activists, don’t believe abortion should be totally banned. For example, nearly every pro-lifer I’ve ever interacted with agrees abortion should be legal to save the life of the mother, and a majority of self-described pro-lifers believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape. It’s a misconception to suggest that pro-life activists are only those who think all abortions in every circumstance should be illegal.

Pro-lifers may disagree on the legality of abortion in the harsher cases: when a woman’s physical health is endangered, when she was raped, when the fetus has a severe, possibly life-threatening condition, etc. But if I had to describe the common thread that pulls together most people who call themselves “pro-life,” I’d say it’s the agreement that abortion is immoral and should be illegal at minimum when it is done on healthy fetuses resulting from consensual sex and carried by healthy mothers. And the great majority of abortions today are done in such cases. Rosin alludes to as much herself: 
“Three in 10 American women have abortions by the time they hit menopause. They are not generally victims of rape or incest, or in any pitiable situation from which they need to be rescued.”

Rosin continues: 
“They are making a reasonable and even admirable decision that they can’t raise a child at the moment. Is that so hard to say? As Pollitt puts it, ‘This is not the right time for me’ should be reason enough. And saying that aloud would help push back against the lingering notion that it’s unnatural for a woman to choose herself over others.”

Rosin is asking people to be more direct about abortion, yet she describes a woman’s choice to abort as merely “choosing herself over others.” That description is not direct at all. Abortion kills a human. That’s direct. Many people don’t consider that human worth much moral consideration, and so some of them are pro-abortion, as Rosin clearly is. Fine. But pretending that a death isn’t happening means ignoring why the entire subject continues to divide Americans. Rosin wants to believe this is about being aghast that a woman would choose herself over others, but it’s not about that at all.

Consider this: if a woman feels it’s not the right time for her to have children, she can choose not to have sex, or choose to only participate in non-procreative sex, or choose to use contraception, or choose to give a child up for adoption. She could also choose to abort. All of these choices may reflect her position that she isn’t prepared to or doesn’t want to raise children, yet one of these choices is far, far more controversial and contentious than the others.



If this were really about us being upset that a woman would want to choose herself over others, we’d be against any decision that puts her education, career, or other aspects of her life above procreation. Yet, for example, the vast majority of Americans, including the majority of pro-lifers, believe contraception is morally acceptable. Rosin says there is a "fog of regret" surrounding abortion, but we simply don't see that same "fog" surrounding these other decisions. There’s a clear distinction between abortion and other choices not to raise children, and Rosin, and so many pro-choice activists, skip this distinction entirely. Abortion is not simply about reproductive freedom, healthcare decisions, or a woman choosing herself over others. Abortion is about having a very young, less developed human killed. That’s the difference.

Rosin digs in with her gender-based theory by saying we don’t apply the same standard to men. “We would never expect a man to drop everything and accept a life of ‘dimmed hope’ because of a single ejaculation.” I expect the many men who (rightfully) have to pay child support for single ejaculations would beg to differ.

Rosin also elaborates on some of Pollitt’s explanations of alleged pro-life contradictions: 
“[Pollitt] cites one poll for example showing that 38 percent of people say abortion is as ‘bad as killing a person already born.’ But in the same poll 84 percent say it’s fine to save the life of a mother. If you really think about it, this position is untenable. No one would say it was fine to kill a toddler if the mother needed its heart.”

What a strange comparison. When is abortion about the mother needing the fetus's heart? The proper analogy would be if somehow a toddler’s very presence was actively killing the mother (akin to an embryo in an ectopic pregnancy) and the only way for the mother to save her own life was to remove the toddler, and the only way to remove the toddler resulted in the toddler’s death. 

I can’t think of a scenario where that would be true – which goes to a point Rosin and I agree on: the fetus and the mother have a complicated relationship. But if there was an analogous situation with a born human, I think many people would defend the right to kill as self-defense. This isn’t about killing someone else to use their heart (when would a mother ever be able to use a toddler’s heart anyway?) This is about killing someone else to prevent them from actively killing you. Most people, and our own history of self-defense laws, see the two scenarios entirely differently.

Rosin goes on to discuss how the left and pro-choicers should advocate for abortion, especially for poor women, as part of an effort to urge women to wait to have children until they are in stable relationships. She believes promoting abortion as an extension of birth control is part of “a new era of family values.” She agrees with Pollitt, who believes “the moral high ground is in reclaiming the right to have an abortion, regardless of the circumstances.”

But I’m not sure “reclaiming” is the correct verb here. Was there ever a time when people who promote abortion regardless of circumstances had the moral high ground?

Rosin seems to think her side has descended to defensiveness by saying abortion should be safe, legal, and rare and by focusing on abortion in the extreme cases of maternal health and life or of incest and rape. But (to my knowledge) this isn’t a descent – it’s where many abortion defenders have been from the beginning. Perhaps they focus on the extreme cases and act defensive about abortion in general because polls suggest most Americans think abortion as birth control – the kind of remorseless abortion culture Rosin promotes – should be illegal.

Rosin’s piece is not the first to push back against pro-choice defensiveness, but I suspect this aggressive strategy will ultimately backfire. From what I’ve seen, the average American finds abortion problematic but sees it as a “necessary evil,” at least for the extreme cases we so often focus on. I’m dubious our society is willing to instead embrace abortion as an unapologetic good.

730 comments:

1 – 200 of 730   Newer›   Newest»
secularprolife.org said...

So one can't use lethal force in self defense to prevent permanent disability or injury? It always has to be perfectly binary? Life vs life? But if it is life vs disability, life always wins in the hierarchy of rights?

secularprolife.org said...

How would you define disability?

secularprolife.org said...

"Many people don’t
consider that human worth much moral consideration, and so some of them are pro-abortion,
as Rosin clearly is. Fine. But pretending that a death isn’t happening means
ignoring why the entire subject continues to divide Americans."

I'm trying to put myself in Rosin's shoes here. Because if I believed that human beings before birth were essentially body parts, I would obviously want to see women/people assigned female granted control of their own body parts with no stigma or shame. I would guess that people like Rosin genuinely believe that the only reason to believe human beings before birth are equal to those after is if one had overt or internalized beliefs that women should be punished for sex. Despite the obvious difference in the contraception and abortion debates. :/

I don't know how I would express my belief that abortion should exist without restrictions or stigma while acknowledging that my main beef is with those who think human beings before birth have rights. It seems difficult.

secularprolife.org said...

Every child a wanted child, and if not, kill them.

Every child a healthy child, and if not, kill them.

If that makes sense... most pro-choicers don't believe in the quantity of life.

secularprolife.org said...

The funny thing about this is that even though an article was published that literally says "abortion is great", I'm still going to see on a daily basis people claiming that NOBODY is pro-abortion. I can't help but wonder why they don't just say very few people are pro-abortion as opposed to merely pro-choice. Then they would be at least making a claim that can't be refuted with an individual example.

secularprolife.org said...

You know, I was pro choice for many years. "Safe, legal, and rare" was an idea that resonated with me. Keep women safe by preventing the back alley abortions, and make abortion as rare as it can possibly be. Because I am a very left-leaning liberal, the majority of my friends are pro choice, and my experience is that the overwhelming majority of pro choice individuals view abortion as a necessary evil. They hate it. If they had their way no one would choose it. But for a number of reasons ranging from "it's not my business" to "women will have them anyway so they might as well be safe", they support legal abortion. Several of my most outspoken pro choice friends are still very quick to say that they are pro choice but absolutely not pro abortion. So when I see these articles pushing abortion as a positive thing, it makes me glad.
When I see commenters here and elsewhere on the internet say things about how it doesn't matter that abortion takes a life because it's the mother's choice and there is nothing wrong with it, or how lack of access to abortion is slavery or rape, or discussing the embryo or fetus as a monster or a parasite, I want to thank those commenters. I truly believe that those extreme positions do not resonate with the large majority of pro choice people who strongly view abortion as a necessary but awful thing. The majority of people in this country do not like abortion. So I say, keep it up. The pro-abortion rhetoric is only hurting their cause - most people in this country support at least some restriction of abortion. They are not going to get behind the idea that abortion is a happy positive thing for women to go through.

secularprolife.org said...

I agree with Pollitt, "This is not the right time for me, should be reason enough to have an abortion"

secularprolife.org said...

She seems to
neglect the many post-abortive women and men


I was unaware that men could get pregnant. What a fascinating concept.

But if I had to describe the common
thread that pulls together most people who call themselves “pro-life,” I’d say
it’s the agreement that abortion is immoral and should be illegal at minimum when
it is done on healthy fetuses resulting from consensual sex and carried by
healthy mothers.


Actually, I disagree. It's about pregnancy as a punishment for daring to have sex without planning to procreate. It's also about being so filled with hubris that you think you know what is best for total strangers, without having the vaguest idea of what their circumstances are.

I used to be profoundly anti-choice. Then, at the risk of sounding flippant, I got out of high school. I discovered that life was not as black-and-white as I thought. I started to apply critical thinking to my "sincerely held beliefs" and recognized how wrong-headed they were.

I know what the position is because I held it. I tried to sugar-coat it like you did in the paragraph I quoted, but the reality at the bottom of it is just what I said.

secularprolife.org said...

I ask this in all sincerity; do you believe it is better to have a crappy life than never to have been born?

I remain puzzled at the high level of existential angst I see amongst the anti-choice, so I am hopeful that you will actually respond as to why a crappy life is better than never having existed at all and not knowing the difference as a result.

secularprolife.org said...

Consider
this: if a woman feels it’s not the right time for her to have children, she
can choose not to have sex, or choose to only participate in non-procreative
sex, or choose to use contraception, or choose to give a child up for adoption.


You are aware that all forms of contraception, including surgical sterilizations, can and do fail, right?

Insisting that people be abstinent, or behave only in ways that you deem appropriate, makes you look more than a little prurient.

secularprolife.org said...

Pro lifers have told me that this is preferable to aborting a mindless embryo
http://wgntv.com/2014/08/19/california-boy-forced-to-eat-cat-feces-own-vomit-before-allegedly-being-beaten-to-death-by-mom-boyfriend-testimony/

Starvation. Beating. Forced to eat shit and vomit. Locked up in a dark closet. Torture. All more humane than abortion at 5 weeks.

secularprolife.org said...

Just touching on a couple things you mentioned and not everything...

"First, the mere claim that abortion is immoral, regardless of how many "agree" with the claim, means nothing without evidence. And you-all abortion opponents have no such evidence!"

There are numerous and exhaustive arguments given for this on the SPL blog, as well as many other pro-life groups, articles, papers, blogs, etc. Just because this particular blog doesn't go into it, doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.

"Sex does not force a sperm to fertilize an ovum; they are independently-acting entities. Sex does not force a blastocyst to implant into a womb; it is also an independently-acting entity."



Sperm and ovum aren't entities. They're not organisms; they're parts, not wholes. They're only obeying the genetic programming of the organism to which they belong.


Placing responsibility on them makes as much sense as pricking someone with a needle contaminated with harmful bacteria and then defending yourself from an assault charge by claiming that you didn't make them sick, the bacteria did. It's not your fault, you just pricked them with a needle.


The blastocysts is an organism/entity, you're right, but it has no responsibility for implantation, or any control over the situation whatsoever. It exists, and implants, because of the parents' actions.


Blaming the embryo for implanting is like throwing a baby out the window and blaming it for crushing your flower beds when it lands.

secularprolife.org said...

So the woman forces the blastocyst to implant on her fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy?

She also forces the sperm to penetrate her ovum? I guess that this is why IVF is never necessary, right? Women can just magically will fertilization and implantation?

secularprolife.org said...

This is a horrific, inhumane tragedy. But I'm not sure how it connects to abortion, as abortion was never mentioned in the article. We don't know if the mother would have aborted him; she had other children, and certainly abortion was accessible, so we can assume she chose not to.


At any rate, I'm not certain what your connection is here. Should she have been forced to abort? Should abortion be illegal, would women who do not want a particular pregnancy treat their unwanted offspring this way if they were "forced to gestate"?


As a prolifer, I do not know a single pro-life person who would support this as preferable to abortion. But I cannot imagine that most women would treat the children borne of unplanned pregnancies in this way, so I just don't see the connection.

secularprolife.org said...

I am not sure why the only options are a) being aborted or b) having a crappy life.

secularprolife.org said...

Unwanted children have historically been abused, starved and killed through infanticide. The pro life country of Brazil has a huge problem with abandoned street children. Also, historically, unwanted children are sold into prostitution - this still happens today, in the third world.

secularprolife.org said...

"Women can just magically will fertilization and implantation?"


Obviously not, but that doesn't mean that responsibility for those events lies with anyone other than the mother and father, or sometimes doctor, who caused them to occur.

secularprolife.org said...

I would suspect you may not have understood the full implications of being pro life at the time you were in high school (i can only assume you mean literally; otherwise you are indeed being flippant). A lot of pro lifers have not fully thought them through. On the other hand, a lot of pro-life people have thought through the implications (as have people who were once anti-life and then thought them through, some to then become pro-life).

You may believe that pro lifers view pregnancy as punishment. Some perhaps do. I find that a very simplistic and immature understanding of the pro life position and not even a little bit accurate.



(I call pro-choice anti-life in this particular post because calling someone anti-choice when they are anti-abortion is incorrect. I believe everyone of us is anti-choice in some arena or another. Including you.).

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, I did mean it literally. I was a bible-thumping anti-choicer with what I thought were clever arguments, such as "it's not a choice, it's a child," and "abortion is murder" ... much as one sees here every single day.

When you are telling a woman that she does not have the right to make her own medical decisions, you are against choice (hence anti-choice).

I no longer possess the hubris to pretend that I know what is best for some total stranger to do when it comes to pregnancy. I don't know her health situation. I don't know her financial situation. I. Don't. Know. And neither do you. You don't get to decide for me, and vice versa.

Let me put it very simply: I personally believe that Michelle Duggar is an overbreeding nitwit. However, you don't see me out there trying to legislate away her right to have children until her uterus prolapses. Her reproductive choices are *hers,* and I support them whether or not I personally agree with them. That is the largest difference between you and me: you think you have the right to make my reproductive decisions for me, which is something I would never do to you.

PS: If you don't think that the bottom line of the anti-choice position is pregnancy as punishment, I suggest you look at how often your fellow travelers refer to it as "paying the consequences."

secularprolife.org said...

The person to whom I responded said that "pro-choice do not believe in quantity of life." I was asking xir whether they really meant that quality of life was irrelevant and that quantity was what mattered. I'm sorry if that was unclear.

secularprolife.org said...

The people who said that to you are disturbed and disgusting.

secularprolife.org said...

Just because this particular blog doesn't go into it, doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.

There is no evidence that abortion is "immoral." None. It is no more "immoral" than any other medical or surgical procedure. Your dislike of something does not render it immoral.

The blastocysts is an organism/entity, you're right, but it has no
responsibility for implantation, or any control over the situation
whatsoever. It exists, and implants, because of the parents' actions.


Consent to sexual intercourse is not consent to gestate, no matter how you try to dress it up.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope, not unless you think that ovulation itself is a crime that must be punished with denial of bodily rights and the infliction of bodily harm and sometimes even death.

secularprolife.org said...

Sex whilst ovulating leads naturally to the creation of a new living being. I never said ovulating (or conceiving) was a crime, any more than giving birth is a crime. But creating a new human being does mean that you are responsible for it. If the mother's life is in imminent danger, then the pregnancy can justifiably be ended if ending it is necessary to save her. Prior to viability, the mother dying would mean the child died too. Post viability, the child can be delivered by c-section.

secularprolife.org said...

Other medical procedures don't kill individual, living humans. I don't "dislike" abortion, I consider it a grave moral injustice. I "dislike" bean soup.


If you have sex and get pregnant, then you have knowingly and willingly created a child, put it in a condition of responsibility, and placed it in your own womb. So yes, you are responsible for it. If you create a helpless person who needs you, then you have a responsibility to that person.

secularprolife.org said...

OK, so in the case when you didn't consent, ie were raped, are you still responsible? Should a woman or girl who is raped be exempted and allowed to abort?

secularprolife.org said...

There are numerous and exhaustive arguments given for this [the notion that abortion is immoral] on the SPL blog, as well as many other pro-life groups, articles, papers, blogs, etc. Just because this particular blog doesn't go into it, doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.
-----
WRONG. All the "arguments" you mention are based on Prejudice and/or Hypocrisy and/or Bad Data, in the form of lies and/or distortions of fact and/or denials of fact and/or incomplete truths. I've worked my way through every one of them that I could find, at the wordpress blog named "fightforsense". None are actually based on valid evidence supporting the notion that an unwanted unborn human animal organism is somehow inherently worthy of being treated differently than any other unwanted animal/pest.
=====

Sperm and ovum aren't entities.
-----
THEY MOST CERTAINLY ARE. Look up the definition of the word!
=====

They're not organisms; they're parts, not wholes.
-----
An entity is not always the same thing as an organism. If I thought sperm and ovum qualified as organisms, I would have used that word instead of "entity".
=====

They're only obeying the genetic programming of the organism to which they belong.
-----
FALSE. They are obeying built-in genetic programming. Look up the phrase "fire and forget" sometime.
=====

Placing responsibility on them makes as much sense as pricking someone with a needle contaminated with harmful bacteria and then defending yourself from an assault charge by claiming that you didn't make them sick, the bacteria did. It's not your fault, you just pricked them with a needle.
-----
YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION VERY WELL. Remember, when a wanted pregnancy does not happen, sperm and ovum very often receive the blame! You cannot have it both ways without being a Stupid Hypocrite!
=====

The blastocysts is an organism/entity, you're right,
-----
OF COURSE.
=====

but it has no responsibility for implantation, or any control over the situation whatsoever.
-----
FALSE. It's built-in DNA tells it to implant. Else an ectopic pregnancy, inside a Fallopian tube, would never happen. Only if its DNA is defective would it fail to attempt to implant. (Even in the womb, it might still fail, for reasons outside its control. The womb has a coating of mucus that protects it from bacteria; if the coating is too thick, the blastocyst can fail to implant. And if there is scar tissue in the womb, say from a previous pregnancy, the blastocyst would fail to implant if it randomly happens to try to do it into the scar tissue.)
=====

It exists, and implants, because of the parents' actions.
-----
MISCHARACTERIZATION. The parents' actions can set a sequence of events in motion. Those events still involve independently-acting entities. The statistics are, about 50% of the time a conception fails to yield a confirmed pregnancy, at least partly because one of those independently-acting entities failed to function in a successful way.
=====

Blaming the embryo for implanting is like throwing a baby out the window and blaming it for crushing your flower beds when it lands.
-----
FALSE. Blaming it for implanting is exactly like blaming it for implanting, nothing more, and nothing less. Remember, if it fails to implant when you want it to implant, you DO blame it! To say you can't blame it for implanting when you don't want it to implant is Stupid Hypocrisy.

secularprolife.org said...

If you have sex and get pregnant, then you have knowingly and willingly
created a child, put it in a condition of responsibility, and placed it
in your own womb. So yes, you are responsible for it.


I nearly died gestating a wanted pregnancy. I have a tubal ligation. You are perhaps unaware that even surgical sterilizations can fail, but they can. Should that occur, there WILL be an abortion. I am not risking my life again.

Just because *you* consider something to be a "grave moral injustice" does not make your belief universal. I consider it a "grave moral injustice" to pretend that you know the medical and financial situation of complete strangers and thus have the right to make their reproductive decisions for them.

secularprolife.org said...

Honestly, I think bodily autonomy to justify killing the unborn child is a terrible, awful, morally and logically bankrupt argument, except in the case of rape, in which case I think it's probably the strongest pro-choice argument. But what would we do if a woman had a newborn child who was conceived from rape, who could not transfer care immediately? Would she be responsible for the child's welfare, if the child would die without her care? I'm believe so, but I'l admit it's a bit murkier. She would definitely not be justified in outright killing the child, which most abortion procedures do. There's also the consideration that the child may have greater bodily rights to the uterus than to the mother's other body parts, because the uterus, unlike all the mother's body parts, is not actually there for her use, but rather is designed specifically shelter and care for unborn children, and humanity could not have survived unless we were all able to be in the womb during our most vulnerable months.

secularprolife.org said...

"The United States legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, in part because of the clear evidence that restrictive laws were not ending abortion but were exacting a significant public health toll, notably on lower-income women who could not travel or pay for safe services. Almost immediately afterward, pregnancy-related deaths and hospitalizations due to complications of unsafe abortion effectively ended." - From Facts and Consequences: Legality, Incidence and Safety of Abortion Worldwide, Guttmacher

secularprolife.org said...

The first part of your reply, I applaud you. This question I think is a litmus test for whether a pro-life position is held purely for humanitarian reasons (and I accept those as valid, though I might disagree) rather than due to religious or other dogmatic reasons, for which I think the person is not only a lazy thinker, but also doesn't actually care about the woman. You come across as a thoughtful individual who cares about humanity, and your pro-life position is based on that, and I respect your position. I'm personally pro-life, in that I can't ever imagine suggesting an abortion to anyone I know, but I do think that it is in the end the woman's decision, and recognize that in certain situations, abortion is just the best solution in a world of compromises.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm glad to hear you were okay and you and you baby made it through. Abortion in cases where the mother's life is at grave risk are not the same as the majority which do not present such a risk. If the mother is not going to survive and the baby is not viable, and ending the pregnancy is necessary to save the mother's life, doing so is justified (although it should be done in the most humane manner possible and preferable without direct harm). The loss of one life is preferable to the loss of two. If the baby is viable, the pregnancy can be ended by c-section.


I never said that, just because I think something, it makes that a universal belief. I think dog fighting and stealing TVs is wrong, but not everyone agrees. We all force our moral beliefs onto others in certain instances, yourself included. I don't presume to know the financial and medical situation of every pregnant person, and I don't presume to know the situation of every person with a newborn either, but that doesn't mean I think we should remove infanticide laws and allow wanton killing of newborn babies.

secularprolife.org said...

Thanks, and likewise thanks for being willing to discuss this thoughtfully. You seem like you've given your position thought. If you don't mind my asking, why are you personally pro-life? Why wouldn't you have an abortion?

secularprolife.org said...

Well, you did accuse me about adoption ideas. I see no point that I should give you an answer...

secularprolife.org said...

Because I think abortion has the potential to be traumatic, not for all mind you, and if you have the means and resources, I don't see why you wouldn't have the kid, unless you really don't want children. I personally love kids, love my own, and want a reasonably large family. All the things I say about how one fetus is as good as another is me thinking rationally. But emotionally, I would think of the fetus as a great gift, and personally could not bear to see it aborted. I also understand that I am fortunate with resources and a stable family life right now, and most of my friends and family are in a similar situation. To such people, I see no reason to ever suggest an abortion, and even if its a minor financial hardship, they are all in good enough shape that I think they'd be able to work it out. I am personally pro-life because I am fortunate. I realize not everyone is, and sometimes in life one has to prioritize. It is sometimes not possible to have everything. In those situations, I just believe the woman and family going through such an ordeal is the only one qualified to make difficult decisions, and that a one-size fits all pro-life stance is not sufficient.

secularprolife.org said...

If you don't think conceiving is a crime why punish a woman for it?

secularprolife.org said...

Of what did I "accuse you" with regard to adoption?

It's okay to admit that you can't answer the question, sweetie. Actual critical thought is hard, after all.

secularprolife.org said...

Do you see that? It's the point, whizzing right over your head.

secularprolife.org said...

On the other blog where I asked about improvement on adoption... You lashed me out over there...

secularprolife.org said...

Um, no. I actually answered your question by telling you how I would improve it if it were up to me. If you think that was "lashing out at you," I suggest that you rethink your position.

secularprolife.org said...

If I recall correctly, you have a disability and crappy life, you have no reason to live. Normal people always come first, as it seems so...

secularprolife.org said...

Then why were you anger at me about the cost on children with special needs? I get that you believe they should be aborted. If birth parents want to keep a child, I just thought it'd be nice to help them out...

secularprolife.org said...

You quoted a passage listing multiple options besides abstinence, and then claimed I was insisting people be abstinent. It's almost as if you're trying to assign me a perspective I don't hold, rather than understand my actual perspective.

secularprolife.org said...

How absolutely ridiculous. How much of the pregnancy was the man going to gestate, again?

secularprolife.org said...

I guess you missed the second clause of the sentence: or behave only in ways that you deem appropriate,

You are trying to dictate behaviors that are none of your business whatsoever.

secularprolife.org said...

If you strip a woman of her right to bodily autonomy, torture her, and possibly disable and even kill her by forcing her to remu pregnant against her will, without due process, you are effectively treating her as you would a criminal.

And life of the mother abortion exceptions are not always successful, and won't prevent a woman from dying during or after birth

secularprolife.org said...

The fetus is not entitled to the woman's whole body. If she chooses to shut off the blood supply to her lower body that is her right.

BTW, your argument fails because it could be used to justify rape - vaginas are designed expressly for penises, therefore, penises are automatically entitled to women's vaginas, whether women want them there or not.

secularprolife.org said...

He can't force her to gestate a pregnancy against her will. She has a uterus not him.

secularprolife.org said...

I would love it if men could get pregnant. It would change everything.

secularprolife.org said...

I grew up Catholic and attended Catholic school k-12. I was sourounded by antichoicers. Seeing how Women were treated in the Catholic Church is a big reason why pro-choice.

secularprolife.org said...

I see...

By the way, one of my comments is not really angst but true. Most pro-choicers said it's better to be nonexistent than living. Also, they often said about every child should be wanted and healthy. You did ask me the question why I think 'having a crappy life is better than nonexistent.' So, do you believe that people with disabilities are better off nonexistent because they have a poor quality of life, right?

secularprolife.org said...

Correct. Men can lost their children to abortion. It's pretty obvious that they can be affected by it...

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah? I smell bull crap.

secularprolife.org said...

NONE of it. That's why my opinion is "Cry me a river,"

secularprolife.org said...

Unwanted pregnancy is not a happy positive thing under any circumstances. All the choices you have suck big time. You make the best choice for your life at the time, just like you do in any crisis situation.

secularprolife.org said...

Very well put. It's the "consent to sex equals consent to gestation" mentality that makes me blow my cookies. I would react the same way to an argument that consent to skiing equals consent to a broken leg.

secularprolife.org said...

I think you need to look up the definition of "individual." And no, I have no bodily responsibility to a fetus or anyone else. Even you. Go pound sand. You use your OWN body to "assist" 'needy persons.' You have no authority to use mine.

secularprolife.org said...

ALL pregnancies are potentially risky, and things can get very ugly, very fast. I know this as well as anyone. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. And in spite of your delusions of grandeur, you are NOT going to be forcing your moral beliefs on me, at any time, under any circumstances. EVER. I don't bow to you. Piss off. I'm an adult. I will do as I SEE FIT. Not as you see fit.

secularprolife.org said...

Well see, that's just the thing! I won't be HAVING any "newborn child conceived from rape." I'll keep that from ever happening. You get to BUTT OUT.

secularprolife.org said...

No "children" are ever lost in abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

LOL @ "quantity of life." NO I guess I DON'T value "quantity" over "quality." So sue me. If I had the choice between 1 more year of relative good health and happiness versus 5 years of misery... I'd take the one great year. But then I have a lot of experience with those who are suffering. And I'll be honest with you. I would administer as much morphine as it takes to keep someone comfortable... even if it shortens their life a bit. I've already awoken a doctor three times overnight because the patient was still writhing in pain. When he stopped writhing, I stopped calling. You see, I didn't want that to be the last thing his family saw. The man's family came by the next morning to say goodbye, and he passed away in peace later that morning. I felt good about that.

secularprolife.org said...

Tay Sachs disease for one thing. I could think of others.

secularprolife.org said...

There was no "offspring."

secularprolife.org said...

*shrugs*


That's fine if you value best quality of lives, which I stand correct that most pro-choicers do agree with you. You said it yourself now.


What do you think of non life-threatening disabilities? Do they not matter too, are they?

secularprolife.org said...

I see... *shrugs* Okay then.

secularprolife.org said...

I would argue that this is 100% at odds with the new pro-abortion line that this book is trying to promote, though. Abortion is a horrible option that women chose in the middle of a crisis. It is not positive. It is not the moral high ground.

I am pro-life. For many, many years I was pro-choice, because of exactly what you just said. I saw abortion as a terrible option, but one that should be available in a crisis. Eventually I just couldn't dismiss the humanity of the fetus any more, and I couldn't continue to support an increasingly extremist position that paints the fetus as a malignant parasite that is trying to kill its host and argues that the taking of a unique human life is absolutely fine 100% of the time.

secularprolife.org said...

Is existence always objectively better than non existence?

secularprolife.org said...

I'll bet a lot of 'pro-life' men would stop referring to nine months as 'such a short amount of time.'

secularprolife.org said...

"I would argue that this is 100% at odds with the new pro-abortion line that this book is trying to promote, though. Abortion is a horrible option that women chose in the middle of a crisis. It is not positive. It is not the moral high ground."
This isn't an argument. This you proclaiming your opinion with no evidence behind it. Other people have different opinions on the matter, and their position is just as valid as yours. Women aren't obligated to allow their lives to be derailed by a single sperm. It just isn't all that important. We're not short on people, by any means. That means not every pregnancy has to come to term. Nobody thinks a fetus is "a malignant parasite." It's human, it's alive, it may be unwanted. But it's not a person. Pregnancy is 1) expensive, 2) inherently dangerous, and 3) life-altering to the degree that gestation can't be forced upon anyone. Even with all these abortions, population isn't declining. For over forty years women have been able to legally have children only when they want them. i.e. planning and spacing their families. The sky hasn't caved in. Women can be trusted to handle this themselves. They've been handling it themselves for many thousands of years. I see no evidence that you ought to stop trusting them suddenly.

secularprolife.org said...

What about them? I have disabilities too.

secularprolife.org said...

She seems to neglect the many post-abortive women and men who became pro-life because of their abortion experiences.


Well, a woman who's hypocritical enough to think other women should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against their will, after she herself got to make the decision to have a safe legal abortion, is hardly a typical prolifer. And no man can ever have an "abortion experience" - well, except for some trans men.

secularprolife.org said...

Most of the pro-lifers I know, including many pro-life activists, don’t believe abortion should be totally banned. For example, nearly every pro-lifer I’ve ever interacted with agrees abortion should be legal to save the life of the mother, and a majority of self-described pro-lifers believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape. It’s a misconception to suggest that pro-life activists are only those who think all abortions in every circumstance should be illegal.


But how many of you actually spend any time campaigning for safe legal late-term abortion - since late-term abortions are the most likely ones performed either to save the woman's life, or in cases of child rape where the child was not even aware she was pregnant?


Where are the prolifers who openly supported Doctor Tiller, whose medical speciality was performing abortions to save a life and abortions on teenage rape victims? Until a prolife assassin murdered Doctor Tiller, I am not aware of any significant prolife support for Doctor Tiller's work - proving that prolife claims to support abortion in cases of rape and in cases of a threat to the woman's life are all lies.

secularprolife.org said...

But the basic view of prolifers is the extreme position that girls and women should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against our will, because we can be made to gestate unwanted babies. In the US there are over hundred thousand children who wait for adoption for over three years - yet prolifers want to force more unwanted babies to be born? Forced use of other human bodies is an extreme,. anti-human rights position.

secularprolife.org said...

No decent man would ever want to force a girl or a woman through pregnancy and childbirth against her will.


Ergo, no decent man is ever prolife.

secularprolife.org said...

Safe legal abortion, accessible on demand by any girl or woman who's decided she needs it, is an obvious social good, since all the consequences of opposition to this are social evils.


But no one except fantasising prolifers supposes that a girl or a woman who decides she needs an abortion does so because she thinks of abortion as a fun Disneyland ride.

secularprolife.org said...

Do you think that girls and women with non-life-threatening disabilities should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth?

secularprolife.org said...

Honestly, I think bodily autonomy to justify killing the unborn child is a terrible, awful, morally and logically bankrupt argument


You think you have the right to make use of another human being's body against her will, and if she says no, her justification for saying no is "terrible, awful, morally and logically bankrupt"?

secularprolife.org said...

Exactly. "Post-abortive men," my Aunt Fanny. What a steaming pile of dung *that* is!

secularprolife.org said...

So, do you believe that people with disabilities are better off nonexistent because they have a poor quality of life, right?

Perhaps you need to ask that of some people with disabilities, or of some abused children (do you think children are aware when they are unwanted)? I'm not in the business of speculating about what other people think about their own situations. I happen to know a good many people with disabilities who would rather not have been born. I know an equally good number of people who were abused as kids who would rather not have been born.

Each situation is different, despite your best attempts to cram everything into little boxes that fit your personal comprehension. If there is one thing I have noticed that unifies the anti-choice, it is the black-and-white thinking that you folks tend to apply.

You still haven't answered my question, though; all you've done is deflect it. Why is that?

secularprolife.org said...

So I am.

secularprolife.org said...

What? I'm not. Look at you, you said it yourself again. I'm not nitpicked your words. Most pro-choice people tend to just say people with disabilities should not be existed. Sure, they tend to say that they wish they're not here. I'm not ignored them. I pointed out that a lot of people like you do say about disabilities.

I'm sorry that you believe disability is less valueless than healthy. I have my terrible life and my disability, hearing, yet I don’t wish to be not here. Yeah, I am soo "wrong" to say it. I refuse to allow myself to teach me that I'm not matter just because I have disability. I consider both abled and disabled equally matter. *shrugs*

That's why I don't need to owe you an answer, otherwise you'd hate to read my answer would say. You'd dismiss it, anyway.

secularprolife.org said...

In the grand scheme of life, it is a short time. When it's you, it feels unending.

secularprolife.org said...

What about the humanity of the already born woman, doesn't she count for anything? By definition a fetus is a parasite, existing off a host. However, few women will give that as a reason for an abortion and aren't thinking like that at all when they make a decision to terminate a pregnancy.

secularprolife.org said...

At some point during discussions about abortion at least one pro-lifer will start talking about "keeping her legs closed", not wanting to pay for s55ts sex lives, etc., etc. There is no denying that a significant number of anti-abortion people do indeed think poorly of women, all women, do want to control other people's sex lives.

secularprolife.org said...

They would all be pro-choice or really pro-abortion and abortion would be available for free on every corner with some good coffee afterwards.

secularprolife.org said...

offspring = post born child.

secularprolife.org said...

Waiting until a woman's life is in immediate danger is waiting too long, she will most likely die and if she's in such critical condition performing a C-section might kill her. Women absolutely should have the legal (and moral) right to terminate a pregnancy when her health is severely impacted. My aunt died from complications of pregnancy, an abortion does not help a woman who has kidney failure.

secularprolife.org said...

When did having sex become a tactic agreement to be pregnant and have a child? Not ever.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm sorry that you believe disability is less valueless than healthy.

Since I never said any such thing, I am calling bullshit once again.

I have my terrible life and my disability, hearing, yet I don’t wish to be not here.

And I'm glad for you. That doesn't mean your experience is universal, which is why I said that Each. Case. Is. Different.

Jesus wept. Can you not read?

it is okay to admit that you cannot answer the question; that's become blatantly obvious anyway at this point.

secularprolife.org said...

Once a child has actually been born most forced birthers loose interest, do not really care about quality of life -- only that it exists.

secularprolife.org said...

It should always be the decision of the woman and whoever she chooses to involve in that decision making (husband/partner). Not yours, you aren't going to be taking care of a child with a disability or supporting it or risking your marriage over it.

secularprolife.org said...

How much of the pregnancy would the man be gestating again?

secularprolife.org said...

Offspring have, you know, been "sprung off" -- born.

secularprolife.org said...

And to pregnancy as a "minor inconvenience."

secularprolife.org said...

that is trying to kill its host

You really have no idea of the biological realities of pregnancy, do you? The zygote starts to suppress the pregnant woman's immune system the minute that it implants. It takes nutrition away from her body. It uses her kidneys to cycle its waste. It quite literally *does not care* whether its host dies; it is as opportunistic as any parasite.

Every single pregnancy is risky; what risks will manifest are not apparent until a woman is already pregnant. When a potentially fatal complication arises during pregnancy for you, the chances of it happening then become 100 percent. My source on this is primary; I nearly died gestating a wanted pregnancy.

You talk about the humanity of the fetus, but I notice that there is not one single, solitary mention of the humanity of the pregnant woman. Why is that?

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, that line of thinking worked out so well for Savita Halapannavar, didn't it?

secularprolife.org said...

Or beer.

secularprolife.org said...

Plus the TV would be showing football ...

secularprolife.org said...

No, you kept a lot of people do not want to be here. I pointed out that it is not in that case. I'm not one of them who want to die or don't want to be here, anyway. I read just fine, thanks.

it is okay to admit that you cannot answer the question; that's become blatantly obvious anyway at this point.



Please! That's easy for you to say that. You will dismiss and mock my answer, so no, it's not worthy.

secularprolife.org said...

kept said*

secularprolife.org said...

I said each case is different but that I personally know a good many people who wish they had not been born. Seriously, I think you just cannot read.

You haven't answered jack shit, just sidestepped the question i keep asking. The same applies to this most recent non-response. So, I can only continue to surmise that you have no answer. ::shrug::

secularprolife.org said...

S/he continues to refuse to reply to my question about "quantity of life," just doubling down on his/her nonsense.

secularprolife.org said...

Once a child has actually been born most forced birthers loose interest, do not really care about quality of life

QFT.

secularprolife.org said...

There is no 'unborn child' any more than there is an 'unborn senior citizen.

**But what would we do if a woman had a newborn child who was conceived from rape, who could not transfer care immediately? Would she be responsible for the child's welfare, if the child would die without her care?**

One person is not responsible for being enslaved because another person can't sustain their own life. There is no special pleading for people of a certain age to be able to enslave others for their 'very lives'.

**humanity could not have survived unless we were all able to be in the womb during our most vulnerable months.**



Humanity ALSO could not have survived if the eggs were not able to be in the ovaries, during their 'most vulnerable months', and if they had not been fertilized. Does the egg have a 'right' to be fertilized base on this? Or do cells only get 'rights' in order to punish the parents for having sex.

secularprolife.org said...

“You really have no idea of the biological realities of pregnancy, do you?”

I know quite a bit more than you give me credit for. However, this is the internet, and a pro-life blog at that, and I do not need to submit my credentials for your approval in order to voice my position here. I have spent the past decade working in women’s health and absolutely understand the physiology and “biological realities” of pregnancy. Which is why I understand that your gloom-and-doom picture of pregnancy is inaccurate. I respect that you had a life-threatening pregnancy. I am very glad that you and your child are okay after what you both went through, and I recognize that your experience understandably affects your view of pregnancy and its risks. That said, anecdotes are not accurate data upon which to base policy and procedure. You are correct that pregnancy CAN be life threatening, but most of the time women’s bodies are perfectly capable of adjusting to and recovering from pregnancy. Unless you respond to any and all pregnancy announcements in the same way that you would respond to a diagnosis of cancer, I suspect that you are perfectly aware that pregnancy is not the life threatening ordeal you make it out to be.



"You talk about the humanity of the fetus, but I notice that there is not one single, solitary mention of the humanity of the pregnant woman. Why is that?"

Because the last time I checked there is no movement in the United States advocating for the termination of inconvenient or unwanted pregnant women. There are about 800 maternal deaths annually in this country out of nearly 4 million births. In the same year, there are just over 1 million documented abortions. To look at those numbers another way, you would need to count the maternal deaths over nearly 4 years to equal the abortion deaths that occur in just one day. To equal the abortion deaths in a year, you would need to count 1,250 YEARS of maternal deaths. If pregnant women were losing their lives at the rate of thousands per day because someone else decided they were inconvenient non-persons based on their level of development, I would absolutely oppose that in every way that I could think of.

This maternal mortality rate is in no way acceptable or dismissible. It is horrifying that 800 women per year lose their lives while bringing their children into the world. Many of the causes of maternal deaths are related to preexisting chronic conditions such as diabetes or hypertension, which tells me that we as a nation need to improve our overall health through prevention and access to care. The fact that there are incredible race disparities in the death rates between white women and women of color, particularly Black women, tells me that white privilege and societal racial inequality have a major impact on women’s health and maternal mortality. None of these issues, however, negate or excuse the fact that a million lives a year are lost to abortion. ALL of these deaths are tragic.

secularprolife.org said...

Would it be ethical to force disabled women and girls to gestate?

secularprolife.org said...

Would you oppose abortion if "only" 800 prenates were aborted per year?

secularprolife.org said...

Well, "only" 800 women die per year from pregnancy, so it really isn't a big deal. And I am sure that those 800 women and their families don't mind then being dead, since it is ONLY 800 worthless female lives.

secularprolife.org said...

Reproduction is not complete when a man ejaculates. It takes 9 months to make a baby, not one lucky sperm penetrating an egg

secularprolife.org said...

And they lose interest if it is a disabled child/woman forced to gestate,or threatened with certain disability from pregnancy.

secularprolife.org said...

If a woman will 100% become permanently paralyzed from the waist down from pregnancy, should she still be forced to gestate against her will?

secularprolife.org said...

"Would you oppose abortion if "only" 800 prenates were aborted per year?"

Yes, I would. As I said in the post you're responding to, 800 deaths per year is in no way acceptable or dismissible. However, a decrease from 1 million to 800 lives lost to abortion every year would be an amazing improvement in the state of affairs. Also, 800 abortions per year may more accurately reflect the exceedingly rare situations in which women actually need an abortion to save their lives. I don't know offhand what the rate of ectopic pregnancy per year is, but that is one example of a pregnancy that is indeed life-threatening to the mother and in which an abortion is indicated to save her life. While the embryo in an ectopic pregnancy is no less valuable than an embryo implanted in its mothers uterus, the ectopic location is almost always lethal for both the mother and the embryo and given the choice between losing one life or two, I would always choose to lose fewer lives.

secularprolife.org said...

Right, so you are saying that women do not have an inalienable right to life because, according to you, a single cell is more valuable.

secularprolife.org said...

And there went the point, right over your head. You are far more concerned about the loss of embryos than you are about the loss of pregnant women.

If what you claim is true, then you should already be aware that every single pregnancy causes permanent physiological changes to a woman's body. A forensic anthropologist can tell how many times a woman has been pregnant by looking at striations on the pubic symphysis, for example. Your argument that pregnancy is somehow a state of wellness is 100 percent nonsensical. Pregnancy suppresses women's immune systems and makes them susceptible to any number of conditions that might not previously have existed, *including* the hypertension and diabetes that you mention.

Your argument that women should be forced to assume medical risks that, if your claims are true, you should already know are NOT predictable until she is already pregnant is absurd and reduces a woman to nothing but the walking equivalent of an EasyBake Oven. The oven's job is to make cakes, and a woman's job is to make babies, regardless of risk to life and health.

Your argument that the death of an embryo is equal to the death of a woman is one of the most misogynistic things I've ever read.

secularprolife.org said...

Do you have problems with reading comprehension? That is not even remotely close to what I said. I very clearly stated that in situation where pregnancy actually threatens a woman's life, such as ectopic pregnancy, I support the termination of that pregnancy because the choice is to lose only the embryo, or to lose them both. I would always chose to lose fewer lives.



I'm not sure how you're reading "the single cell is more valuable" into my post. Talking specifically about ectopic pregnancies, most are discovered and aborted between 5-10 weeks of pregnancy, vastly beyond the single cell stage, and even then I would opt to save the mother because I understand that she can survive past the end of the pregnancy, and the fetus (while no less important) is not yet developed enough to do so.

secularprolife.org said...

It is impossible to predict which women will die from pregnancy. It is also impossible to prevent it, especially as a life saving abortion wont save a woman who dies during or after birth.
I assume that you consider zygotes to be people? So, by your reasoning, a single cell brainless zygote has an inalienable right to life, but millions of random women do NOT. By forcing all pregnant women to gestate, you are in effect playing Russian Roulette with their lives, and by implication, denying all fertile women the right to life. Which is apparently not morally problematic as far as you are concerned, since zygotes, in aggregate, are more valuable than women.

Pure misogyny.

Would I also be correct in guessing that you put the "right to life" of a zygote above a woman's right not to be permanently disabled?

secularprolife.org said...

Check this out: http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-england-29594304

If they're okay with killing imprefect unborn ZEFs, then they are probably all right with killing born kids with disabilities.

secularprolife.org said...

*facepalm*

No, really.

Why don't you get it over with and accuse pro-choicers of being Hitler, ok?

secularprolife.org said...

My ex-husband is a 'post-abortive man'. No, he didn't have an abortion, obviously, but his girlfriend at the time did. It was his child. He didn't pressure her into it, but he definitely supported the abortion. He said it took him him about 20 years to get over the guilt he felt later. He's not religious and no one ever told him that he should feel guilty. But, he did. Yes, there are men who regret abortions.

secularprolife.org said...

So he owned her body the minute he ejaculated?

secularprolife.org said...

There are men who regret marriages, too. Regret is a normal human reaction to being in a bad situation, even when you know you're doing the right thing.

secularprolife.org said...

I regret that I ever even said hello to the guy I was engaged to at age 18. If it seriously took him 20 years to get over doing what was the right thing at the time, he should seek counseling.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, I found the news on Tumblr, and most people said they understood her action and not all disabilities are equal. Do you agree that death is solution to everything, right?

I'll quote someone's quote (http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2012_09_01_archive.html?m=1):

Would it not be better to be looking for an option that allows the child -- and the family -- to have the good while mitigating the bad as much as possible? Would it not be better to provide families with love and support that would enable them to cherish every possible moment of love and happiness? Would it not be better to strive for treatments and cures? And for the families who simply can not cope with the ordeal, would it not be better to place the child in a setting where his or her daunting needs can be met? Would it not be better to offer adoption, foster care, and hospice care?

Even with the best of help, Tay-Sachs is a hellish disease. I can not stand in judgment of the parents who fled to the abortionist.


That's example of why people with disabilities should have some real assistances rather than killing them. I can't see how the killing can "help", but I let pro-choicers think what's best for the disability, anyway.

I stated my words on the other blog: "If she still wants abortion, there is nothing I can do."

*shrugs*

secularprolife.org said...

Is death the solution to everything? No. But sometimes it is the best option.

secularprolife.org said...

That's strange. I'm sure that I replied to your comment, but it seems it's not there anymore. O.o

Did you see my other comment? Well, it's in a case if you don't see the comment. Here. (Noted: I kinda forget what I originally said, but I tried to do my best to memorize everything I had said.)

Well, I found the news on Tumblr, and most people said they understood her action and not all disabilities are equal. Do you agree that the death is solution to disabilities, right?

I'll quote someone's quote ( http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-viral-tay-sachs-story.html?m=1 ): "Would it not be better to be looking for an option that allows the child -- and the family -- to have the good while mitigating the bad as much as possible? Would it not be better to provide families with love and support that would enable them to cherish every possible moment of love and happiness? Would it not be better to strive for treatments and cures? And for the families who simply can not cope with the ordeal, would it not be better to place the child in a setting where his or her daunting needs can be met? Would it not be better to offer adoption, foster care, and hospice care?

Even with the best of help, Tay-Sachs is a hellish disease. I can not stand in judgment of the parents who fled to the abortionist."


That's an example of why people with disabilities should have real assistances. I can't see how the killing can " help ", but I will let pro-choicers think what right things for those disabled people, anyway. As I stated my words on the other blog: "If she still wants to have an abortion, then there is nothing I can do."

*shrugs*

secularprolife.org said...

Non existence is not the worst thing that can happen, you know.

secularprolife.org said...

I gave up. I'm pretty positive that I did reply to your comment, but I don't see my two comments. I'm not sure what's wrong with this comments section.

So, nevermind..

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah. ME, ME, ME, ME, ME. Keep saying that and know that at least 2 year-olds have an excuse. Sickening.

secularprolife.org said...

And what you said makes you seem incredibly irresponsible and beyond selfish. Here's your point of view: 'It's worth it to me to kill someone so that I can have vaginal intercourse. Yay! Look at me be free! Who cares if abortion is a violent and aggressive attack on an innocent life! I'm having fun! Weee!' So sad that people like you exist.

secularprolife.org said...

Do you drive a car? Are you aware that thousands of americans die in car accidents every year? So basically, your point of view is: "its worth it to me to kill someone so that I can drive a car, because I'm too lazy to walk! Yay! Look at me be free! Who cares of people die violently in car accidents every year! I get to drive! Weeee!!"


So terribly sad that people as stupid as you exist.


Here, because you're so stupid, I'm going to connect the dots for you. People who choose to drive, knowing that they could get into an accident that could injure someone, are not selfishly choosing to injure others just so they can drive, correct? Surely, you cannot disagree with this premise.


Likewise, women who engage in intercourse are not killing "people" in exchange for the privilege of doing so. Admit it.


I reiterate, it is so terribly tragic that people as stupid as you exist.

secularprolife.org said...

"It exists, and implants, because of the parents' actions."


False. The parents do not control whether or not the blastocyst comes into being after sex or whether the blastocyst implants after coming into being.


Please PLEASE explain how you think the parents POSSIBLY are responsible for implantation. You stupid fool.


If it is your proposition that the parents are responsible for implantation, then every parent---especially those who are practising natural family planning- are also responsible for the failure of blastocysts to implant and their subsequent deaths.


So tell me, why are you not going after all of those sinful catholic women who are practising natural family planning for causing the blastocysts to fail to implant?

secularprolife.org said...

So do you want to force people you despise so much to have the sacred task of raising a child and force them by law?

secularprolife.org said...

My mantra = I - ME - MY - MINE.
Who else should I be concerned about? YOU?
You skeeve me.
When I take the very best care of myself that I can, I find that I have taken good care of all around me for the most part.

secularprolife.org said...

Thanks for this quote. I am going to use it in my current essay.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, they have argued here that it does not matter if the abortive sloots injure themselves with unsafe abortion, because after all, you wouldn't legalize murder just to protect the health of killers, right?

secularprolife.org said...

You know, you have made a lot of asinine assumptions (not surprising, since that is the entire basis of the anti-choice position). I am a married woman who nearly died gestating a wanted pregnancy. I will not risk my life again should my tubal ligation fail.

You need to get out into RealityLand; life is not as black-and-white as you think.

Your hubris is astonishing; you presume to know the situations of total strangers and to dictate that they behave according to *your* lights. It's sad that people like YOU exist.

secularprolife.org said...

HEY! I like football too.

secularprolife.org said...

I had my tubes tied 29 years ago. Are you claiming that if the tubal ligation failed (and they DO fail) that I have "willingly" created "new life?" Screeeeeeeeeech! It seems to me that using sterilization, or an IUD, or birth control pills, patches, vaginal rings, shots, and even so-called NFP or FAM is the explicit hanging out of a "NO FETUS WELCOME" sign. I never "placed" anything in my womb, as I've never used an IUD(not that I oppose their use... just never had one), and that's the only instance that I know of where anything is EVER intentionally placed in a womb. "Helplessness" has never created a right to the use of a body that isn't yours. It never WILL create such a right.

secularprolife.org said...

NOPE. It's a random biological occurrence. 50-70% of all embryos fail to implant, and the woman's body can be expected to reject 25% of those that do implant. That's just how we have evolved to handle reproduction. Not all embryos will result in pregnancy. Not all pregnancies will result in a live birth.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, I have my account but I don't use it very much. I finally see two comments of mine and your replies, but I'll let this discussion move on, anyway. To avoid a glitch..

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, it's sickening all right. "You can't have an abortion because it upsets ME ME ME."

MYOB.

secularprolife.org said...

Abortion reduces crime.
http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/99_0927_crimerate_bw.pdf

secularprolife.org said...

This is the summary of a WHO report that asserts that abortion and contraception are human rights. The entire report is available at the link.
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/254

Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of
everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health

Summary
In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health considers the interaction between criminal laws and other legal restrictions relating to sexual and reproductive health and the right to health. The right to sexual and reproductive health is a fundamental part of the right to health. States must therefore ensure that this aspect of the right to health is fully realized.

The Special Rapporteur considers the impact of criminal and other legal restrictions on abortion; conduct during pregnancy; contraception and family planning; and the provision of sexual and reproductive education and information.

Some criminal and other legal restrictions in each of those areas, which are often discriminatory in nature, violate the right to health by restricting access to quality goods, services and information. They infringe human dignity by restricting the freedoms to which individuals are entitled under the right to health, particularly in respect of decision-making and bodily integrity. Moreover, the application of such
laws as a means to achieving certain public health outcomes is often ineffective and disproportionate.

Realization of the right to health requires the removal of barriers that interfere with individual decision-making on health-related issues and with access to health services, education and information, in particular on health conditions that only affect women and girls. In cases where a barrier is created by a criminal law or other legal restriction, it is the obligation of the State to remove it. The removal of such laws and legal restrictions is not subject to resource constraints and can thus not be seen as requiring only progressive realization. Barriers arising from criminal laws and other laws and policies affecting sexual and reproductive health must therefore be immediately removed in order to ensure full enjoyment of the right to health.

secularprolife.org said...

And I'm a woman that went through a horrific miscarriage that Novasure and Essure had to fix and even then it wasn't enough to stop the chronic bleeding, so I have an IUD to prevent a pregnancy and if I was to get pregnant, I would have to abort due to life threatening complications for both me and the baby. Yet, I lean pro-life. Most that are pro-life are not advocating to put women's lives at risk. Most support women having an abortion for medically health and life-threatening reasons. So, let's drop the red herring.

secularprolife.org said...

Dear women and future women of today, let us take a united stance and curse mother nature for our ability to get pregnant. In fact, let us all unite and take a pack in not ever allowing another woman to give birth again. Since the embryo is a parasite and since pregnancy and birth is so life threatening and since the only way we can show the world how women are not worthless is by abortion then abortion should be ENFORCED and BIRTH OF CHILDREN OUTLAWED. That will teach the world the worth of women - are you fuqing kidding me? I am being sarcastic but seriously that is the message your post implies. Do YOU hate women and yourself for our reproductive powers?

secularprolife.org said...

An abortion isn't gonna save a woman who dies during or after birth is it?

And I guess you think it is morally acceptable to permanently disable a woman for the life of a frtus?

secularprolife.org said...

Are we humans slaves to nature? You use an IUD, do you not? Why do you hate nature and your biology? Pregnancy is natural and wonderful, you should always embrace it even if it can kill and disable you. In fact, nature made you specifically for pregnancy, so why should you have a CHOICE in the matter?

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah! And my medical decision to have boob and butt implants should also be paid for by tax dollars, along with any other unnecessary medical procedure; screw silicone poisoning because it is more important to live up to societal standards of beauty and please them than it is to be healthy. My body, no one else's business. Oh, I think perhaps I will go South Park style and have a dolphin fin sewn on my back because it is my body and my right.

secularprolife.org said...

Abortion is not taxpayer funded. Hyde amendment. Nice histrionics though.

secularprolife.org said...

Another fucking red herring. Should I not go drive my car because of assholes on the road that don't know how to drive? Should I not take a flight because of plane crashes? Should I starve myself because people choke on food? Should I not go swimming because people drown? What the fuck kind of argument is "oh, women should have abortions because they can die in childbirth and permanently disfigures women"?!?

secularprolife.org said...

Do you know what the word "choice" means?

Abortion opponents want to force women to gestate, which does in fact put women's lives and health at risk.

Last I checked, no one is forcing you to swim, to drive, to fly, or to eat.

secularprolife.org said...

Hey! I know a dummy who needs to look up the Hyde Amendment and see why no tax dollars ever pay for abortion! Yeah, that's you, Star Seed!

secularprolife.org said...

Not yet but there is a push to make it tax-payer funded or did you forget about that?

secularprolife.org said...

Her tears of righteous rage are delicious. Also, points fly over her head like a 747.

secularprolife.org said...

Moving the goalposts tsk tsk.

secularprolife.org said...

There is no red herring, sweetie. You need to look around at your fellow travelers and see how many of them think that no abortions should be permitted at all because it hurts their feelings. Right on this blog, I was told that since "only" 800 women a year die in the United States due to gestational complications, it isn't that big a deal.

Never mind that gestational complications are the number one cause of death among women world-wide. Never mind that the US maternal mortality rate is on a par with *Afghanistan.* Never mind any of that and save the embryos!

secularprolife.org said...

I'm not the one advocating an extreme opposite. There is nothing wrong with menstruating, with conceiving, with being pregnant and with giving birth. There is no shame in it and women should not be degraded for it or be mislead to fear it or be ashamed of it. I love being a woman. You should too.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't see what this has to do with Fiona's statement at all.

secularprolife.org said...

And I suggest you look up the red herring fallacy
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

The fact that pregnancy is a medical condition is true. It is a FACT that pregnancy can maim kill and injure. It is also a FACT that abortion can't always save a woman's life when pregnancy goes wrong. A red herring is an irrelevant distraction. My rebuttal was no such thing and is completely FACTUAL.

secularprolife.org said...

In fact, let us all unite and take a pack in not ever allowing another woman to give birth again.


No. That would be as anti-choice as forcing every woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Two sides, but the same coin.

secularprolife.org said...

No, there is no shame in that. But it shoukd also be a CHOICE, considering the risks, don't you agree?

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, I do love being a woman. It doesn't mean that I must have children or love and desire motherhood and pregnancy.

secularprolife.org said...

Note the word "most". "Gestational complications are the number one cause of death among women worldwide" Really? What about cancer, heart attacks, and domestic violence to name a few?

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, I know a female that seems to be ashamed of her own vagina. In fact, I came across two today! What' next? Are the two of you going to claim consensual sex is rape?

secularprolife.org said...

No one said that you must love motherhood and children and pregnancy but neither should it be degraded and feared and encouraged as something to be ashamed.

secularprolife.org said...

I haven't had enough coffee yet for this to even begin to make sense.

secularprolife.org said...

I think motherhood and children are fantastic, for women who choose that route. Nothing wrong with it at all. But it should be a choice.

secularprolife.org said...

Considering the risks. LIFE is all about risks. A woman has more risk of dying from cancer and heart disease than giving birth. You shouldn't live your life in fear.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, life is about risk. That's why we should leave the decisions to the person who would actually be assuming that risk--the woman who is actually pregnant

secularprolife.org said...

Aww. So it would be morally acceptable to FORCE you to eat trans fats and inhale cigarette smoke 24/7, since life is risky?

Would it also be morally acceptable to force you to go skydiving? Swimming with sharks? Testing pharmaceuticals?

After all, life is so full of risks that you should have no CHOICE in regards to which risks you face, right?

secularprolife.org said...

She is like Muriel, but with more anger.

secularprolife.org said...

I can't believe that you are so afraid to live your life because you are so afraid of dying and even at that seem to disregard other factors because you are so focused on "killer pregnancies" and "killer births". I was going to toy with you but I now can't help but feel the deepest empathy for you. Why are you so afraid, hon?

secularprolife.org said...

Unless you can be pregnant for someone else, you don't get a say in how much risk they should be willing to assume.

secularprolife.org said...

Uhm...it's a fact that pregnancy is a medical condition. It is a fact that birth is painful. It is a fact thay pregnancy can maim and kill.

What is so wrong about being honest in regards to the risks?

If a woman wants to take the risk, I say, great for her. But thay does NOT mean that women should be forced to gestate against their will.

secularprolife.org said...

WTF are you even talking about? I point out that no tax dollars are used for abortions because of the Hyde Amendment and you go off about my vagina?

Seek help for whatever the hell is wrong with you.

secularprolife.org said...

Are you seriously comparing second hand smoke with being pregnant? Why do you despise children and the female reproductive system so much?

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, I just don't like think that I should have my bodily integrity violated on behalf of another. Also, the risks, the pain, make it even less desirable.

Now what is objectively wrong with that?

secularprolife.org said...

What about them? I'm sorry you don't understand data, but here it is anyway: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT

You're welcome.

secularprolife.org said...

Do you think that you should be able to have a say in how much risk someone else should be willing to assume?

secularprolife.org said...

Apparently she is just toying with us, by sounding like a halfwit!

secularprolife.org said...

Your analogy, sweetie.

secularprolife.org said...

Jennifer, this is an intelligent counterpoint that would normally enjoy discussing but right now, I think I stepped into the Twilight Zone. There is a difference between advocating for choice and advocating for women to be ashamed of their bodies.

secularprolife.org said...

Okay. I'm going to get some more coffee, because I don't even know what the hell you're babbling on about. The only one who's been talking about being ashamed of their bodies is you. Perhaps in future discussions you might actually try addressing my point instead of sidestepping?

secularprolife.org said...

Massive straw man. Detailing medically accurate risks is NOT vagina shaming.

secularprolife.org said...

You are so full of shit. Back your fear mongering statements up with science and facts. Go ahead. I dare you.

secularprolife.org said...

If you want to act like a bitch then I can be a cunt. We can play this game.

secularprolife.org said...

Clearly, the CDC hates vaginas too:
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregcomplications.htm

secularprolife.org said...

The fuck it is, you are the one coming off like a doomsday prophet by preaching to women that because 800 women a year die from birth then women shouldn't get pregnant or give birth.

secularprolife.org said...

He already has. More than a few times now.

secularprolife.org said...

Sweetie, you are no cunt. Now Plum Dumpling is a total cunt, which is why she is so endearing.

secularprolife.org said...

Do you think it's okay to scare women with bogus statistics and bad science into not getting pregnant or giving birth?

secularprolife.org said...

I wasn't the one who failed to give a straight answer to fairly simple question. I fail to see why that's such an imposition. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me?

secularprolife.org said...

No, I am not. I am merely refuting the oft made claim that pregnancy is a minor inconvenience.

secularprolife.org said...

No one is doing that. Now answer mine.

secularprolife.org said...

That's not what night porter is saying at all.

secularprolife.org said...

SHE, you "bitch".

:p

secularprolife.org said...

No one here is doing that.

secularprolife.org said...

Sorry-she :) Oh, I seriously need more coffee now--my poor brain.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, where does it state that maternal conditions are the number one cause of death for women in the world? Where? Because the leading cause for death for women in the world is Heart disease.

secularprolife.org said...

Nice try though on twisting statistics to support your fear mongering.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 730   Newer› Newest»