But Where’s The Body?

Today in a landmark victory (for now) for the pro-life movement, South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed a bill requiring mothers seeking an abortion to wait 72 hours between the initial counseling with the doctor and having the abortion, in addition to requiring a visit to a crisis pregnancy center.  On que, the ACLU has responded in their usual predictable fashion decrying the legislation as “cruel” and a “mistreatment of women”.  Their rationale for opposition, and also that of others who label themselves pro-choice, seems counterintuitive to the label they prefer (pro-choice as opposed to pro-abortion).

Many of those who take the pro-choice position will argue the idea that it is the choice they are arguing for, not abortion per-se.  There is emphasis on the choice, which would entail either birth or abortion.  However, I think this is only an illusory defense of choice.  Why do I say an illusory defense?  Because it seems that the pro-choice position only nurtures choice until there is the slightest interest in abortion as an option, then the position moves from defending a choice in either direction (birth/abortion), to full advocacy for abortion.

Any time legislation which would require an informed non-impulsive decision, those on the pro-choice side begin to cry foul.  When a law requiring a waiting period in order to ensure the choice is not made in haste; requires emotional counselling; requires options being made known such as adoption; requires an ultrasound in order for the mother to see what it is she will be removing from her womb; requires being informed that abortion takes the life of a human which is distinct from the mother; the pro-choice movement goes all out in advocating that women should not have access to the information.  But we should ask, why — if it is the choice those on the pro-choice side are after — would they be against women making an informed and careful decision?  Why are they so vehemently opposed to women being persuaded to rethink having the abortion?

I am fully aware what I am about to say next will be extremely offensive to those of the pro-choice movement, but unfortunately I can see no alternative conclusion.  It would seem pro-choice advocates feel as though they deserve a dead body.  It is apparent that the only choice pro-choice advocates endorse is the choice for abortion.  Every attempt to dissuade a mother of her decision to abort, elicits claims of deprivation of human rights, mistreatment of women, deprivation of necessary health care — all for seeking to preserve the life of the child.  If I am mistaken, why is every attempt made  (either by lawsuit or protest) to prevent the birth of the child?

One other point (which I admit does not prove pro-choice advocates “demand a body”) I find both telling and suspect is that if in fact it is the choice and not necessarily abortion which is sought to have preserved, is the ratio of crisis pregnancy centers to abortion clinics.  According to Wikipedia there are “over 4,000 CPCs in the United States, as compared with well under 750 abortion clinics”.  To my knowledge, there are no crisis pregnancy centers owned and/or operated by self-described pro-choice individuals or organizations, which is either a grand coincidence, or as I argue, something more.

I believe if it was the choice which was the object of the pro-choice advocate and not the abortion, there would not be such vigorous attempts made to ensure mothers are prevented from information and measures which may persuade them to choose birth over abortion.  Offering and encouraging a choice other than abortion is met with vitriolic opposition. Their rhetoric is for choice, but their actions betray their claims; their actions demand abortion.   

Comments

  1. Terrance H. says:

    Wonderful, John. Nicely written. You did a better job, I think, than what I did, responding in my latest post to a pro-choicer up in arms over this law.

    Thanks!

  2. rautakyy says:

    Propaganda is not information in it self. Information is not wrong in any way, but if it is deliberately used to pressure the woman not to have an abortion, or to have one, for that matter, it is no longer just information. What kind of information these women require? They allready are aware why they need an abortion having come to that desicion. Do you seriously think they do not know what happens to the fetus in an abortion? Do they automatically require information that would compel them from having an abortion? I must say I am a bit surpriced, you John Barron Jr, are for this sort of legistlation. I have had an impression you are against government type of patronizing of the citizens. I hope this is not because you think women as less intelligent or capable of making their own desicions. Though, that is a conservative male attitude, I thought you wiser.

    The waiting time in this new law in it self is not wrong as such. It may just serve as an extension to the cultural pressure applied to the women considering abortion. I doubt, if it will decrease those abortions that are had by fewer serious reasons in comparison to those had with even more numerous serious reasons. It may end up just decreasing those abortions, where the woman is under more social and cultural pressure not to have one. Or possibly it will not dramatically decrease abortions, after all we do expect these women to be adults who have made their desicion before they came to have an abortion. Though many of them are in need of abortion for the simple reason they are not in full control of their lives. So, are those the people who will more often be led not to have an abortion?

    • If abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, why is it wrong to use that information to pressure someone into not taking the life. I hope if anyone were considering taking your life without proper justification that some other person would do everything in their power to pressure them not to do it.

      It’s not about women being less intelligent, the problem is exactly what you recognized from the begining, but your assessment is misplaced. It’s propaganda and misinformation coming from the pro-choice side. Women specifically, and the public in general has been bombarded by pro-choice advocates that what is in the womb is not human, which is false. They have been told abortion does not kill a human being, which is false. There has been every effort possible made by the pro-choice side to restrict information to women seeking an abortion.

      States which require ultrasounds performed have seen drops in the abortion numbers.

  3. rautakyy says:

    What would you consider to be proper justification of taking my life? There is no capital punishment in my country (and no increase in crime as a result). Would it be a proper justification, if a nother country invaded mine and an enemy soldier killed me, while I was trying to defend my home and legal govermement? Would it be better justified, if my goverment was torturing and killing people? You see, there are reasons why human life is taken every day, and it is justified in various reasons we rarely question.

    The women having abortions do have their reasons to have one. As presented in the statistics from the Guttmacher institute you posted previously in “One of these things is not the same as others”. Those statistics tell a gruesome tale of how most women having an abortion have multiple serious and complicated reasons to have one. If we are to exclude that opportunity from them, we have to have a guaranteed system where the surplus population created this way are not socially and economically discarded, damaged and that the mothers and children are actually cared for. That is, by the way, called socialism.

    I respect your conviction to your cause, John Barron Jr. It is good to have idealists who try to stand in the way of wrongs they see in society. Especially so, if the wrongs they are trying to correct are in their own society. Same applies to the pro-choise movement. I do not think those people are murderous baby killing psychopats any more than you are a taliban like religious fanatic trying to oppress women. It is easy to demand some wrong would be stopped. It is by far more difficult to try to present realistic solutions to the problems, the wrong is a result of.

  4. “Those statistics tell a gruesome tale of how most women having an abortion have multiple serious and complicated reasons to have one”

    The fact that you thought that list of reasons were serious and complicated makes me believe your moral compass is in desperate need of repair. That list (with the exception of preserving the life of the mother) serves to illuminate how incredibly selfish people can be. To take a human life for those reasons truly are crimes unrecognized.

  5. Well, my “moral compas” may be in need of repair, as it is wery hard for any of us to be self aware of such a thing, but that is not an argument for your cause. I thank you for this minimal spiritual guidance, and seek help from elswhere.

    On the other hand, with what you wrote on that aforementioned post has me questioning if you can read statistics at all. You quote them eagerly enough, to prove a point you have previously decided on, but it seems as if you did not understand that if there are more than hundred percent, it represents multiple overlapping phenomenae in the statistics. I hope this is not the case, but it is only your “moral compas” that tells you to ignore such facts.

    • I’m sure women gave multiple reasons for why they have abortions. But having many selfish reasons for getting an abortion doesn’t somehow make the act morally acceptable.

  6. rautakyy says:

    You wrote: “…the exeption of preserving the life of the mother…”

    If the fetus is as much a human being as the mother, why would you accept that it would be killed so that the mother would be saved? I understand that this is a hypothetical question, but as it is not an impossible situation, how would you determine wich is to be saved if their odds of survival would be equal? Should the doctors flip a coin?

    I am only asking this, because I think you have given the whole issue more thought than I ever have. At least you seem much more determined and passionate about your opinion than I feel about mine.

    It is a moral question wether we see those reasons the women give as ample enough for taking a life that could become a human being. Me, with my “broken compas”, would accept them as such. You see, I do not see the fetus as a person yet. I belive the question here is where do we draw the line if the fetus is a human being and why. There are moral issues and biological facts that can be used to draw the line either at the moment of impregnation or at the moment of birth. I am ready to come half way and accept (as it is in most countries that have legalised abortion) that the fetus starts to develope into a concious human being at mid pregnancy, though in my view it starts to become a person only after birth.

    I understand that to an idealist such as yourself compromises are not solutions to moral questions, but that is often how the world works, in order for us to avoid the greater of the evils.

    • In the case where the life of the mother is at stake, it is a one or both scenario. We either have two dead people or one. It is as much a tragedy to lose the baby as any other time one must decide to take a life to save a life.

      In this case the goal is to save the mother, which can only be done by taking the life of the baby. In the case of elective abortion, the goal is the death of the baby, and that is the difference.

  7. Kelsey B says:

    South Dakota is 77,121 sq mi in size. Do you know how many planned parenthoods there are in South Dakota? Zero. That’s right not a single one. And very, very few abortion providers (if any I googled it and couldn’t find a single clinic, so if I was a women looking for an abortion in SD I doubt I’d have much better luck). So if you’re a poor women in South Dakota, which is also home to one of the poorest Native American reservations in the nation as well, what are your options? Spend money and take time off from work to drive possibly hundreds or even thousands of miles to get to your closets free or low cost clinic to get abortion counseling or spend a ton of money you don’t have talking to a closer Dr. because you don’t have insurance. Miss more work to go to a crisis pregnancy center who only give you one way information, aka do not treat abortion as an option and will not recommend an abortion provider to you if that is what you do choice. (Fact Planned Parenthood can and will provide the exact same information and services a crisis pregnancy center provides only they won’t force it down her throat against her will, they give it to her when she wants it, and they leave out the unproven statistics and the subliminal wording, such as calling fetuses tiny babies) If you are still financially able you then have to take off more work and spend more money to either drive back to the clinic or rent a hotel room to stay close to a provider for the 72 hours, so you can finally get the abortion. Unless, South Dakota gets around to placing a 20 week rule like some others states have, then you have to hope your small amount of time to make a choice hasn’t been eaten up by the red tape because otherwise you have to leave the state to get the procedure done.
    Or you take your chance with the hanger. Because going through all that hassle may actually be more emotionally harmful to you then the physical harm being done to your body by a quack in the back of a van, if even financially possible. And that discludes the possibility that you might need to make arrangements for the care of children you might already have.
    Some choice.
    Not only that, but a lot of crisis pregnancy centers will turn women seeking abortions away. They don’t want anything to do with you, and they especially don’t want any part in helping you check off that box which gets you one step closer to an abortion. They have their priorities, and it’s not to insure you have all the information possible before you make your choice, but to convince you it’s not an option. They don’t want women who know what they want because they could “pollute” the women you still have yet to make their decision by talking to them in the waiting room. And I won’t generalize that all clinics think this way, some are under the delusional impression that every “baby” will be saved as long as they provide enough one sided and sometimes even false information. Also, these “clinics” are not medical facilities, but forget to tell you that.
    This isn’t about choice. It’s about providing more obstacles, because like with anything in life the more obstacles there are the less people will try to obtain them and in this case it’s safe abortions. Plus study after study shows the more obstacles to safe abortions there are in a state the higher the rate of injury hospitals report from attempted and botched abortions. We’re putting women’s lives on the line and denying their right to choice a safe abortion of their own free will.

    • Sorry, I suppose you missed the 2 Planned Parenthood centers in SD, one in Rapid City, and the other Sioux Falls. There is only one abortion facility on SD which is their Sioux Falls center. But with a population of only slightly over 800,000, how many abortion centers does SD need?

      Additionally, I always take exception when pro-abortion advocates trot out the coat hanger argument, and that men have no standing in the abortion debate. First, we don’t keep from making things illegal because the person seeking to commit the crime might endanger themselves while doing it. By your reasoning, street muggings should be legal because too many robbers get hurt in the struggle. How do you feel when you hear that a home invador is killed by the home owner during the incident? Whose side are you on in this situation? If abortion takes the life of an innocent human being (and it does, and is irrefutable) then it should be illegal, and mothers who take their chances performing an abortion if it is illegal takes their chances, just like the home invader and street robber.

      Before you smear me (trust me, I see it coming so don’t even think about it), I am not saying mothers who abort are the same as home invaders or street thugs. What I am saying is home invaders and street thugs take their own saftey in to their hands when committing their crimes, much like the mother with the hanger (if abortion were illegal) would be taking her saftey into her own hands while committing her crime.

      Also, if you think men have no standing in the issue, you must have forgotten that it was men on the Supreme Court who decided Roe V Wade. I suspect you mean only men who oppose abortion on-demand have no standing.

      What are the women’s options? Either not having sex if they aren’t ready to be a parent, or taking care of their baby and not killing it, or putting the baby up for adoption. 3 viable, responsible options.

  8. Kelsey B says:

    I also love when men call women selfish for choosing abortion when they themselves will never have to make that choice. Women are sluts when they have sex and men are studs, and too often women get the unequal share of the consequences. Why do we assume when studies say single parented family we assume the parent present is the mother? Because it’s the majority of the cases. Why are over 70% of people on the “pro-life” side men? Perhaps there exists a disconnect in society because it seems to me it’s too often the case that the majority of the time the people arguing against certain rights tend to not be negatively affected by lack of those rights.

  9. rautakyy says:

    John Barron Jr, you wrote:”…the goal is to save the mother, which can only be done by taking the life of the baby.” If you see the life of the mother and the fetus as equal, why would you choose the life of the mother to be saved over the life of the fetus, if their chances of survival were equal? Or did I somehow misread you?

    I do not think Kelsey B means men should not be having a conversation about abortion. What she is referring to, is that men seem to have a tendency to take a particular side on this matter because of cultural and biological reasons.

    You sometimes ask people to consider things in rational way. To me it however seems that on this particular question the “pro-life” side is using more emotional argumentation than the pro-choise side.

    You are addressing the problem here on ideological standards, not on the realities of life. As I said before, it is good that people like you are willing to commit themselves for the better future. However, you would do much more good to your cause to save lives, if you benefited in some way of repairing the social and cultural wrongs that cause women to have abortions. You must realize the existance of the possiblity for an abortion is not the cause of the abortions.

    Here in Finland we have no actual abortion clinics. General hospitals do abortions, and women are not harassed about that. There are no “pro-life” demonstrators outside our hospitals. Yet, our abortion rates are quite moderate. So, the reasons for abortion are clearly not in the possibility for descreet abortion. They are socioeconomical. Socioeconomical trouble is by far greater problem in our society and yours, than the existance of abortion. The possibility for abortion is only one remedy for some of those problems. Crime is mostly result of social and economical trouble. So, solving that kind of bigger problems is a far better way of stopping crime, than just punishing the guilty. If you expect harder punishments is going to lessen criminal activity, you only end up filling more and more prisons. The cause of most crimes is powerty.

    Yes, I would kill an intruder in my home, even if it is illegal. That just goes to show, how taking a life is sometimes justified.

    • Maybe I wasn’t clear. When faced with the decision of both mother and child dying due to complications or being able to preserve the life of the mother, the latter is preferred. Again, only when it is an either 2 dead bodies or 1 dead body, abortion may be a necessary remedy for the life of the mother. Remember the motive is very different. In the case where the mother’s life is at stake, the end in view is saving the mother’s life with the unfortunate consequence of losing the baby. When elective abortion is in view, the end in view is a dead baby for the convenience of the mother.

      Kelsey seems to be no different from others who argue men shouldn’t be in the debate in this respect: they never seem to say that to men who are pro-abortion. What they mean is men who are pro-life shouldn’t be in the debate.

      I fully support you in killing an intruder. There are justifiable circumstances where lethal force is necessary. However, the reasons women give for having abortions are not justifiable reasons for taking a life.

  10. Any law passed that does not recognize a person’s body as first and foremost theirs is unethical. period. And no one else has a right to your body whether you are zygote, 100 year old, or President of the United States. What pro-lifers want to do is criminalize female sexuality. When a criminal breaks the law their punishment is the loss of some of their rights, in particular they are incarcerated. By denying women the right to abortion, you give the priority of her body to sustaining the fetus and her decisions are irrelevant. Pro-lifers say your punishment for having sex is loss of your right to not have your body used by someone else against your will. The government has the right to take away her rights if she has sex, just like the do with criminals for breaking the law. Her body is used against her wishes in an unwanted pregnancy which is arguably even more unethical then what we do to criminals. We don’t force criminals to be the un-consenting life-support of someone else, but pro-lifers believe this is the fair treatment for women who have sex. There have even been statements made during recent debates that suicidal pregnant women should be locked up until she gives birth to keep her from endangering the fetus. It’s clear, treat her like a criminal to protect the fetus. And under what scenarios would some pro-lifers consider giving this right back to women? When she is about to die or when someone else has already used her body against her will. Why is the conversation even here? You only get rights to your own body if it’s to save your life.
    And I’m disgusted by the South Dakota rule that she must go to a crisis pregnancy center because it says if a women holds the belief that she has the right to her body their must be something wrong with her. She is either ignorant, stupid, or selfish and should not be trusted to fully inform herself and make the proper decision to voluntarily give up her body like women are supposed to. After all women’s place in society is primarily that of mother.
    Pro-Choicers aren’t looking for a dead body. They’re looking for the right to their bodies to be recognized and they shouldn’t have to jump through hoops for that right to be recognized.

    • So you either agree pro-abortion laws are unethical because it does not recognize the baby’s body, or you are a hypocrite, or you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      Second, pro-life advocates do not seek to criminalize sexuality, they seek to instill the value of responsibility. If you are not in a position to raise children, you either abstain, or you possibly have a baby. Sex is the only means to pregnancy. By all means, use adoption services, why must the baby die?

      I’ll be honest here Kelsey. My heart breaks at the thought that you believe pregnancy is an abhorent thing. You liken it to prison, the fetus as a parasite. If a fetus is using a mother’s body against her will, it is the mother who put the fetus there in the first place. It didn’t invade.

      Heaven forbid someone tries to talk the mother out of an abortion. If you are so pro-choice, why is it so wrong for someone to try to have the woman choose another option? This is precisely the point of my commentary, you demand a dead body. Once a mother might want an abortion, all bets are off. You’ll do everything in your power to make sure it’s done. Don’t dare try to change her mind.

      Hmm, aborted babies don’t even have the opportunity to jump through hoops. The mothers should count themselves lucky they have that opportunity.

      I would actually be grateful if you would go through the list from the Guttmacher Institute that women gave for wanting an abortion, and tell me which ones are not selfish and frivolous, and why?

  11. All the “recognize the babies body” argument does is argue for a change in the method of abortion. If we simply cut the umbilical cords, so we recognize the fetus does not have a right to be attached to the women is that acceptable? Once disconnected, such as taking a person off life support, does the fetus simply die of natural causes? Because developmentally it’s just not capable of sustaining itself? If you want to do that, we can have a discussion on that though I still don’t feel that would make it any more humane.

    Adoption is an alternative to raising a child, not an alternative pregnancy. It’s not your job to decide when it’s appropriate for a women to have sex, it’s hers. Women who will never be capable of supporting a child, just never get to have sex. Or another favorite of mine, a women aborts because she already has several children and bringing another one into the world will endanger her ability to provide for the children she already has. Yes, even married women get abortions, why? Because sex doesn’t just stop when a person is done having children.

    The mother put it there. right. She got a fetus, stuck it in her womb. Hmmm, I don’t remember putting eggs in my body. And the man who puts the sperm in a pregnant women’s body doesn’t have to be lived off of for 9 months even though he is just a responsible for that pregnancy. But that’s beside the point, sex is not a contract to lose your rights for 9 months. The blastocyst attaches itself to the womb. If the blastocyst is prevented from attaching itself through medication, such as plan B, is that still murder? You say it’s a human from conception, do you also believe plan B should be illegal? Women should not even be able to prevent the blastocyst from connecting to her body, but she is still the one putting it there connecting it to her body? And even if she did consent to the fetus connecting, why does this mean her plans can’t change? This is of course not ideal, but it’s her right to take back her body because it remains hers.

    I would never encourage a women to get an abortion, but if she want’s one that’s her business. I would encourage her to take the time she needs to make the decision, but I wouldn’t force her to take it if she didn’t want it. I would encourage her to talk to friends and family, if she is comfortable with that and find out as much information as she could before she makes her decision. This is not an easy experience for many women, and if she just needs the experience to be over because that’s what she feels is best for her, I recognize her right to make the decision and not put her through anymore. I wouldn’t force her to go talk to strangers who’s motive is to shame her to make the choice they want, regardless of what their pushing their agenda on her is emotionally doing to her.

    I agree, women should count themselves lucky to live in a nation that recognizes their rights when so many in the nations in the world don’t.

    And honestly, it’s not my job to make judgments on what reasons women give for doing things. It’s their lives. The only reason I need is it’s her body, it’s her choice and no matter why she doesn’t want to be pregnant, she doesn’t have to be.

  12. And an unwanted pregnancy is incredibly scary, especially if you are going through it alone. And yes, I do believe the government forcing you to let someone else use your body against your will is equal if not worse then prison. It breaks my heart that pro-lifers can’t sympathies with the terror and stress a women goes through in an unwanted pregnancy. That being pregnant is going to have a huge impact on her life.

    And hind site is 20-20, you can say well she shouldn’t have had sex, even though that’s not your call, but that doesn’t the fact that she’s pregnant now. Is this about making an example of her? If she’s forced to have a baby other women won’t have sex and get pregnant? Since this isn’t really about saving lives because even when abortion was illegal women still found ways of getting them whether it’s leaving the country or using a hanger.

    And no, you can’t just kill an unarmed intruder who is trying to steal your TV. Attempted confiscation of your property is not justification for killing someone. And people go to jail for doing just that. Hell, women have been sent to jail for defending themselves from being raped. Laws do take into mind all parties involved. And abortion is a lot more complicated then home invasion, and just because you see abortion as unjustifiable murder doesn’t mean everyone has to and you get to impose your views on others.

  13. “That being pregnant is going to have a huge impact on her life.”

    So is having an abortion.

    “And hind site is 20-20, you can say well she shouldn’t have had sex, even though that’s not your call, but that doesn’t the fact that she’s pregnant now. Is this about making an example of her?”

    The bodily autonomy arguments fail in several ways, mainly by ignoring the body of the human being that gets destroyed. And that body is a female over 50% of the time (gender selection abortions are nearly all done to kill females for the sole reason that they are female).

    This is not about making an example of anyone, though that is a popular pro-legalized abortion sound bite. It is about protecting the unborn human being.

    “Or another favorite of mine, a women aborts because she already has several children and bringing another one into the world will endanger her ability to provide for the children she already has.”

    Why not let her pick her least favorite child and kill him or her and then have the baby? Both the unborn and the born are human beings worthy of protection.

    “It breaks my heart that pro-lifers can’t sympathies with the terror and stress a women goes through in an unwanted pregnancy.”

    Pro-lifers care about the women and their unborn children. There are more crisis pregnancy centers than abortion clinics, and they are funded with donations. All services are free: Pregnancy Testing
    Peer Counseling: Women & Men
    Ultrasound Imaging
    Adoption Referrals
    Post Abortion Counseling
    Abstinence Education
    Classes related to:
    Pregnancy & Baby Care
    Life Skills
    Biblical Principles

    Try getting that at Planned (non-)Parenthood! They’ll be glad to hide the fact that your daughter is a victim of statutory rape and they’ll destroy your grandchild for you — but not for free!

  14. “So is having an abortion.” The majority of women who get abortions don’t regret the decision, they regret being in the situation to start with, but are glad they had the choice to abort.

    “The bodily autonomy arguments fail in several ways, mainly by ignoring the body of the human being that gets destroyed.” I refer you back to my previous comment. If abortion was to be changed so that only the umbilical cord would be cut would you then accept it? This method would recognize that the fetus does not have the right to live off the women’s body against her wishes, and the fetus would die of natural causes, aka not being able to sustain itself, similar to when a coma patients are disconnect from life support keeping them alive in hospitals.

    Clinics that provide abortions, such as planned parenthood, are actual medical facilities requiring Doctors and have standards CPC don’t have to meet, so yes they are harder to establish and maintain and just can’t pop up anywhere. They also will tell you what services they provide when you simply walk in and ask, while CPC often aren’t straight forward with women and do things like list themselves in phonebooks under abortion providers to trick women into coming into their centers. Planned Parenthood also provides scientifically proven information and birth control to help prevent pregnancy when abstinence education fails.

    And nope, I don’t agree a full functioning, living, breathing child is on the same par as a fetus terminated early in the pregnancy with little development and thus incapable of sustaining itself if the women was to die. A child is of greater priority. Though surprisingly once born, the rights of the child seem to disappear from the “pro-life” agenda. Do CPC provide diapers, child care, baby food, help pay the mothers rent so the child can have a roof over his/her head, or is the right to life simply to have your heart beating and lungs breathing and everything else isn’t in the “pro-life” department?

    And yes, Planned Parenthood will respect their patient’s right to privacy at any age. And you’re not going to convince me that a teen’s parents should be allowed to force her to keep a pregnancy against her will either. Especially when in this country the age of consent to sexual activity is set high compared to many other nations because it helps us deny teen age sexuality as natural and that teenagers posses agency in sexual decisions. The majority of statutory rape cases are between older teen agers. A 19 year old having consensual sex with a 16 year old is defined as statutory rape regardless of whether the male or female is older. And is not requiring a box stating age of partner in their paperwork really the same as hiding statutory rape?

  15. “is the right to life simply to have your heart beating and lungs breathing” (yes, I realize I’m quoting myself) I’m starting to think that even these things aren’t recognized as rights once the child is born according to conservative policies. Excuse me for generalizing, I’m sure some pro-lifers are pro-health care, but there seems to be a trend that pro-lifers seem to generally subscribe to conservative politics. What happens if after the child is born he/she has a medical issue not covered by the mothers insurance, if the mother even has insurance? That child doesn’t just get a free procedure, now does he/she. Or to take it back to the womb, some medical conditions need to be corrected while still in the womb, but a women without the luxury to pay for that procedure will many times still give birth to a child who is either ill or disabled the rest of his/her life if he/she does not die shortly after birth. So as long as the child comes out alive is the pro-life job done? And just to be clear, it’s only okay to force women to provide their BODIES to support other human beings, but forcing tax payers to support other human beings with their MONEY is a violation of the tax payers’ rights.

    • Let me clear up a few misunderstandings you have.

      First, every state in this union allows children to be insured by the state if the mother cannot afford it themselves. No child goes without unless the mother neglects to do it.

      Second, even uninsured children and adults can receive healthcare without insurance. They will have to pay for it, but it is illegal for doctors and emergency rooms to refuse treatment mased on ability to pay.

      Third, our Dear Leader’s health care plan passed in the dead of night does not provide health care for anyone. It was a mandate requiring you to purchase your own health insurance whether you can afford it or not, and imposing fines if you do not or cannot afford get insurance.

  16. “If abortion was to be changed so that only the umbilical cord would be cut would you then accept it? This method would recognize that the fetus does not have the right to live off the women’s body against her wishes, and the fetus would die of natural causes, aka not being able to sustain itself, similar to when a coma patients are disconnect from life support keeping them alive in hospitals.”

    Using your example, you could do a full delivery then cut the cord and withhold care and let the baby die. (That is what Obama strenuously fought for, but that’s another story.)

    And that is not what happens with abortions, of course. The bodily autonomy argument trades on the alleged morality of withholding support, but abortion doesn’t do that. Abortion actively kills the innocent human being.

    “Do CPC provide diapers, child care, baby food, help pay the mothers rent so the child can have a roof over his/her head, or is the right to life simply to have your heart beating and lungs breathing and everything else isn’t in the “pro-life” department?”

    They do provide diapers and food and other help, even though they are under no obligation to do so.

    By the way, unless you are pro-abortion in the sense of poor women being forced to have abortions, then the same obligations you place on pro-lifers fall directly on you.

    What if the women wanted to kill their infants? Could you protest that without being responsible for paying her mortgage?

    “And you’re not going to convince me that a teen’s parents should be allowed to force her to keep a pregnancy against her will either.”

    I am well aware that there will be no convincing you of much of anything. I enjoy these dialogs because middle ground people can get a feel for the real issues and arguments. I like my odds.

    What about the father’s role. What if he doesn’t want his unborn child killed against her will?

    My daughter couldn’t take an Advil in school without the original bottle and a note from me and having to go to the nurse’s office. But people think she should be able to have a serious medical procedure and kill my grandchild without me knowing? Wow.

    “The majority of statutory rape cases are between older teen agers.”

    I’m not sure where you get your statistics, but even if true that (deliberately?) misses the point: Planned Parenthood has been busted countless times systematically hiding statutory rape, and not the 19/16 type — http://tinyurl.com/ybp5ocm . Is it good for women if you hide statutory rape so you can make money off abortions?

  17. Speaking of Planned Parenthood, I agree with their view: “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.” At least that was their view in this 1964 advertisement — http://tinyurl.com/ykeex9e .

    Did they learn anything about science in the few years after that when they changed their minds? Of course not. Science couldn’t be more clear: A new human being is created at conception — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq

  18. “However, you would do much more good to your cause to save lives, if you benefited in some way of repairing the social and cultural wrongs that cause women to have abortions.”

    1. We do.

    2. Abortion is still wrong (replace “abortions” with “infanticide” or any other killing outside the womb and see how your argument works)

    • Neil — Your second point is where the “creative arguing” comes in. It is irrefutable that the yet-to-be-born baby within the mother is fully alive and is wholly human. To deny these facts is to publicly admit you haven’t investigated the issue you are arguing for. Pro-abortionists fail to provide a coherent explanation as to why the infant or todler has protection and the yet-to-be-born baby does not.

      You’re right, their arguments in favor of abortion don’t work if applied to out-of-the-womb children, which should cause them to question abortion since in both cases both are human. This is where the creative tap dancing comes in with issues of personhood and other such theoretical academic rhetoric.

      It has been lies about what is in the womb from the outset. When abortion was first being debated, it was argued that abortion was ok because what was in the womb was just a mass of cells, not alive, and not a human. Then embryonic biology determined the mass of cells was actually alive and so the argument became the mass was not human. Then embryonic biology determined the mass was alive and human and the argument became “we don’t know when the life begins”. Then embryonic biology determined life begins at conception and the argument became the alive human isn’t a person.

      Anyone who takes time to analyze the pro-abortion arguments should see how dishonest and frivolous the arguments are.

  19. “Using your example, you could do a full delivery then cut the cord and withhold care and let the baby die. (That is what Obama strenuously fought for, but that’s another story.)” Interesting, you can do a full delivery with a blastocyst or any first semester fetus? And as long as you provide it with care outside the womb it can grow into a full functioning human being all on it’s own? Our science has yet to discover a way of creating an actual artificial womb or transplanting fetuses to other willing wombs. If we could that then we’d have human’s grown completely separate from mother’s body. It’s still unethical to make a women use her body to support another human being against her will.

  20. Terrance H. says:

    It would seem that in Kelsey’s opinion, the ability to self-sustain defines one’s humanity. Gee, too bad for all those folks on breathing machines, pace makers, and medication necessary to keep them alive. I guess they are less human because, God forbid, they require external forces to keep them alive.

    One biological necessity for everyone is food. I wonder if those who cannot provide that for themselves, like newborns and infants, are less human. No. We can’t say that, because that would be immoral, even by pro-choice standards.

    Instead, we say they require a caretaker. Someone with a legal obligation to provide for that child. But what obligation? This person, mind you, never really gave consent to provide for the child. It’s amoral to force that person to do something they never consented to do. I remember just a few days ago reading an article about a girl in my area who went to prison for giving birth at home and throwing her child away in a 7/11 trashcan. She signed no birth certificate, or papers which certified a legal obligation to do anything with that child. Yet, she’s in jail.

    You see, in the reality based community, we have this little thing called tacit consent, or approval…The woman gave consent to sustain the child in the womb when she engaged in activity that has brought about motherhood since the beginning of human history!

    We should also keep in mind that one does not have the right to do with their body what they wish. This is why there are laws prohibiting prostitution, drug use, and selling your organs for profit. Personal autonomy is not absolute.Period.

    Abortion is indefensible, so silly, pseudo-philosophical rants are what you would expect to hear coming from pro-choicers. And, indeed, Kelsey did not disappoint.

  21. “If the fetus is as much a human being as the mother, why would you accept that it would be killed so that the mother would be saved? I understand that this is a hypothetical question, but as it is not an impossible situation, how would you determine wich is to be saved if their odds of survival would be equal? Should the doctors flip a coin?” (this is a quote from Rautakyy a little further up) This is not actually a hypothetical question. There has been cases where women have had to choose between care that needs to be started immediately in order to save her life and carrying the fetus long enough so it can get to a point to be deliverable and survive. And there are women who have made both choices. But like what Rautakyy said, if the fetus is an equal human being why does she get to decide who is more deserving to live? Why do we allow doctors to violate hypocrite oath by knowingly practicing medicine that will kill the fetus? Why don’t we just say the women must die, and the loss of her life is a tragedy, but one life was still saved when the baby survives. After all that would be they natural course, women died all the time during child birth before modern medicine and it is a flaw with her body that is causing the issues in the majority of cases where pregnancy jeopardizes the women’s life.

    So I bring this back to is this actually about lives or just making sure women aren’t being “selfish” since she brought this upon herself?

  22. Terrance H. says:

    Tacit consent, or approval, to use her body to sustain its own life; not use her body and then kill her. There is a difference.

    Should the need for a medical abortion arise, self-defense is invoked.

    Not that difficult to understand, but the self-styled pro-choice crowd wants people to believe it is.

  23. “And as long as you provide it with care outside the womb it can grow into a full functioning human being all on it’s own?”

    We both know that newborns would die without care.

    “It’s still unethical to make a women use her body to support another human being against her will.”

    1. 99% of the time it is not against her will. Actions have consequences.

    2. Crushing and dismembering innocent but unwanted human beings is unethical. As with nearly all pro-legalized abortion arguments, you ignored the human being destroyed against her will.

  24. Yes, but newborns can be put up for adoption. There are plenty of willing people who can give the newborn care. If the mother dies that child can still be cared for. You can’t force a mother to care for a child she doesn’t want to care for, you can only take that child away. Take away her fetus, she doesn’t want it. I’m fine with that. But until you find away to care for that fetus without her body you will still end up with a dead fetus.

    wrong. 99% of the time a women didn’t take a sperm and egg, force them together, and attached them to her placenta. Actually, 100% of the time she didn’t attach them to her placenta because even in invetro fertilization, the blastocyst still has to figure that out on it’s own. Those cells merged by accident. The extent to which the women tried to prevent that accident from occurring varies, but in the majority of cases the merging of those cells was not what the women was trying to achieve when she had sex. There are plenty of things people do in life that have the possibility of causing something else to happen. We don’t make it illegal to drive to prevent car accidents, we enforce measures such as road rules, to do our best to prevent accidents, but inevitably they still happen. We also don’t deny someone medical care saying they consented to their injuries by driving, we do what we can to preserve their rights. Sex is part of life, even more so then driving. Plenty of people have sex all the time without getting pregnant, and hopefully with improved science and cultural changes in the future 100% of people who don’t want to be pregnant wont get pregnant when having sex.

    So you bring it back to punishment. Consequence aka punishment. You believe choosing to have sex means you loose your right to your body. Sex is not consent to pregnancy. She consented to intercourse with a partner, that’s it. That’s the definition of vaginal sex. And even if sex was consent to pregnancy, consent is not a donation. Consent is fluid, consent is active. Part of consent is you retain the ability to with draw your consent during the happenings for current and future participation. If a partner says stop during sex, both partners must stop because one person has stopped giving consent so if the sex continues it becomes rape. The sex before the stop is not rape, only the sex preceding the stop is rape if the activity continues. Both individuals must remain willing the entire time of the activity for sex to be consensual. And this is how consent works with everything, you only can consent if you have the ability to say no during the process. Pregnancy is a process. Pregnancy is the current use of the women’s body by someone else. So even a women who did consent to pregnancy, which is different from consenting to sex, for part of the pregnancy happenings, aka approving of the fetus’s use of her body up to that point, she still has the right to say she no longer wants her body being used to support that fetus if it is actual consent.

    “Tacit consent, or approval, to use her body to sustain its own life; not use her body and then kill her. There is a difference.”
    If having sex is enough to consent to the possibility that one might become pregnant. Why is being pregnant not enough to consent to the possibility the pregnancy might kill you? Everyone knows that pregnancy might kill you, just like sex might make you pregnant. So why don’t we just say because sex can lead to pregnancy and can lead to death, sex is a women taking her life into her own hands? Self-defense??? But the fetus doesn’t want to kill it’s mother, it’s not trying to do that. It’s just an innocent little fetus that got caught up in a bad situation. It’s no more at fault for causing the possible death of the mother then the mother would be herself (except the mother did go along and get herself pregnant which she knows can possibly cause death), a fetus would never WANT to kill it’s mother, well you know if it even has the capacity of wanting things, so why should it be the one who has to be sacrificed if refusing the mother’s care is going to save it’s life?

  25. Consequences aren’t punishments. They can be good or bad. If people have sex they might get pregnant. That’s a risk they take. You shouldn’t destroy the innocent human being, regardless of the location.

    Re. possible deaths — I’m not following your train of thought. I know a “few” pro-lifers and none object to abortions to save the life of the mother. But just because your neighbor might kill you doesn’t mean you get to go kill him first — especially if he gave no threatening signs.

    BTW, 54% of women getting abortions used birth control the month they got pregnant — http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html . You can dream of sex without consequences but I doubt it will ever happen. In the mean time, women should carry their children to term if they don’t want them.

  26. Terrance H. says:

    As I said on my most recent post, arguments which reject tacit consent do not pass muster.

    First of all, bodily autonomy is not absolute. There is no absolute right to do with your body what you wish. If there were, laws prohibiting prostitution, drug use, and selling organs for profit would not exist. Secondly, if the woman indeed did not want the child in her body – if she did not intend to give tacit consent or approval – then she should have kept her legs closed, for lack of a better phrase.

    The definition of tacit approval is: implied by or inferred from actions or statements; “gave silent consent”; “a tacit agreement”; “the understood provisos of a custody agreement”

    Criticism of the tacit consent argument doesn’t pass muster – at all. The woman knowingly engaged in an activity that’s sole biological purpose is procreation. Pregnancy is not a consequence of sex, but the sole biological purpose of sex. That is, one cannot claim that foreseeing consequences does not imply consent, because pregnancy is not a consequence of the action; it’s the natural result of the action.

    Here

    And it really is that simple.

  27. Terrance H. says:

    Your rant aside, self-defense holds up. Pregnancy resulting in death is not natural or normal. Period. The mother consents to life-sustaining functions, as that is the sole purpose of her womb – to nurture life by providing life-sustaining necessities. When the child – through no fault of his or her own – becomes life-draining, the mother has a responsibility, not just to herself but her other children and future children, to protect herself and her womb. The child doesn’t have to want to kill his mother, but if something has gone wrong, other factors are at work; the mother then has a right to defend herself.

    You can come up with a thousand hypothetical situations and questions, but at the end of the day, very simple principles answer them all. You cannot win with me, because I know what you’re going to say before you say it, as I was once adamantly – resoundingly – pro-choice. There isn’t a pro-choice argument under the sun I’ve not heard, and if there is, I could respond without breaking a sweat. It’s too easy anymore to defend life because abortion is indefensible.

  28. “Re. possible deaths — I’m not following your train of thought. I know a “few” pro-lifers and none object to abortions to save the life of the mother. But just because your neighbor might kill you doesn’t mean you get to go kill him first — especially if he gave no threatening signs.”

    This train of thought is to point out the flaw in the fetus is a human, equal to all other humans, that anti-choicers use all the time. Suddenly when the mothers life is at stack, the fetus’s life becomes second. But what happened to it’s a person? If two people are both humans, they both get equal human rights no person can suddenly be second to the other. You can’t have it both ways. You say the mother can use self-defense, but what happened to the fetus’s right to self-defense? If it could it would be fighting back against being killed, but suddenly all it’s advocates in the real world leave it, forget it’s rights. Why? Because anti-choicers would lose their platform. Because people would question anti-choicers more if women had to lose their lives because their fetuses were people too, with equal rights. So you leave this part out because at least you’ll save the babies you can, which I would almost say is fair except for the fact that all pro-life arguments revolve around the premises that a fetus is fully Human and deserving of all human rights, not to mention the “special” right of getting to live off someone else against her will.

    When the consequence is being forced to do something against your will, it’s a punishment.

    The male latex condom when combined with spermicide and used correctly is over 95% affective in preventing pregnancy. http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/malecondom.html Now if you combine that with the proper usage of hormonal birth control as well, you are getting pretty damn close to 100% protection. And science keeps on improving things as well.

    “gave silent consent” well, when she starts saying no she’s definitely not being silent anymore. And like I said before, consent is only really consent when you can retract it during the actual event.

    “bodily autonomy is not absolute. There is no absolute right to do with your body what you wish. If there were, laws prohibiting prostitution, drug use, and selling organs for profit would not exist.”

    Well, abortion is legal and rape is illegal, so I guess the right to not be used against ones will is a right. If you would like to say “the absolute right to do with your body what you wish” is up for debate that’s fine, but you can’t point to other laws as your justification. Many people debate the ethics behind these laws as well, so I could easily turn the argument around and say these laws are a violation of ones rights. Prostitution, drug use, and selling ones organs are legal in other countries. Does that mean rights are locational and determined by laws, or do we do our best to frame laws around what we see as rights? Plus you still haven’t given an example of a law passed saying a person can use another person’s body against her will, that can still be unethical even if the person themselves isn’t allowed to do absolutely everything they like to with their own body.

    “an activity that’s sole biological purpose is procreation.” Oh right, that’s why people orgasm they’re super psyched about making babies. (haha, that’s supposed to be funny, not serious) Even in nature (animal kingdom) there exists a broad range of sexual activities holding social meanings as well as biological purposes. Like animals, people have sex for lots of reasons. And just because biological reasons for things exist, doesn’t mean we have to be slaves to our biology. Medicine’s sole purpose is to tweak and manipulate chemistry and biology to do the things we want them to, what we find useful. Biology isn’t destiny.

    Oh shit, I got to pick to have a womb? Shoot messed that one up. Here’s the thing, my womb is mine. mine. mine. mine. Nope, I didn’t get to pick it, but as runner-up prize I get to control it and what gets to grow in it and what is does, not the other way around (my womb doesn’t have a brain cause if it did it would know better then to let blastocysts attach to it when we don’t want them to) Having a womb is no more consent to growing a fetus then having a vagina is consent to having sex. The biological purpose for having a vagina is to have sex. I get to choice what BOTH do! why? Cause they’re mine!

    But what about the fetus’s future womb? Why isn’t it our responsibility to protect her for the sake of her future children and her future womb? Obviously, this women isn’t very effective at having health pregnancies, but the fetus inside her might be if we only let it gestate a little longer. What if the womb the fetus is growing in is already not going to be able to bare more children after the damage this pregnancy has done to it and the mother has no other children? Then is the fetus on a higher plain then the mother cause as least she’ll still be able to make more humans when she’s done? This fetus would still want to live, you know, if it could want things.

    Wow. What a coincidence. I was adamantly pro-life up to a few months ago and LOVED defending “unborn children” and their rights. And was always the one to get in the last word. But eventually all the arguing made me relies all the flaws in the pro-life stance. Manly that making abortion illegal will save lives. It won’t. Women will still get abortions even if they are illegal, like they did before abortion was illegal. And women will die. Even risk of death won’t stop them, so why do we think laws can? Plus I looked at what making abortion illegal would say about our society. It says women are slaves to biology, to society, to fetus’s and that their sexuality is dangerous and should be discouraged. And the fact that we know women will still get abortions and in great numbers, says we don’t care about the health of women if she’s not doing what is expected of her. Knowledge, science, and cultural change. That’s what’s going to bring an end to abortions. The longer we argue about laws though, the less energy we spend on actually ending abortion. Because the only things laws are going to achieve is setting back women to being less then humans, because we as a society don’t accept that one person can live off another against their will in any other case. It’s only when it comes to pregnancy, something only women have the capacity of doing. If a man was born with the mutant ability to allow other people to connect to their arm and would allow him to sustain other people as a “human life support” we wouldn’t require him to sustain other people, even if he connected to a sick person because he accidently came in contact with him/her. We wouldn’t tell him to never touch other people, or to never go out into society if he didn’t want to sustain sick people that accidently bumped into him. Because touching people is part of life. Going out into society is part of life. Sex is part of life. We would recognize his body, as HIS body, and that having a mutation doesn’t give him an obligation. And we would let him disconnect himself from another person who he came into contact with accidently, even if disconnecting himself meant the other person would die. Because we respect his right to his body. But when nearly every women on earth has this mutation, only inside them, we want to obligate them to follow special sets of rules because they have a gift as much as a curse that we say should dictate their lives and make their choices for bodily autonomy, not their minds. Telling women they can’t have sex is no more ethical then telling the “miracle” man he can’t go outside or be near people if he doesn’t want to be responsible for sustaining them. Just like it’s unethical to tell a women who can’t get pregnant because she has a defective uterus she can’t have sex. A women with a defective uterus who still ovulates is possibly making and not providing for blastocysts every time she has sex. The blastocyst dies when it can’t connect to her uterus. By her creating a human and not caring for it she’s killing it without even getting pregnant. And if she knows she can’t get pregnant, she’s not going to be using birth control either. But when a women who can get pregnant, uses science or medicine to do what the other women does all the time naturally, we say she’s not allowed to. Because she can provide her body to another person, she has to. The other women’s just special then? She’s allowed to just be making human beings without being forced to be lived off of as a consequence? Or should the government be allowed to just go in and sterilize her (tie her tubes) against her will, mess with her body in order to force her to stop making “blastocyst babies” unless she pledges under penalty of law to never have sex again? After all, she’s a serial killer.

    And as a side note, all pro-life men should stop having sex with women who don’t want to be pregnant. And they should be yelling at their pro-life (and even pro-choice) friends for having sex with women who don’t want babies. If you all actually believe in what you preach. Tell MEN, your friends, co-workers, acquaintances (not just teens in schools) to stop having sex if they don’t like abortions and believe even using birth control is too risky and is still consenting to pregnancy. MEN are the lucky ones. They will never need to make the hard choice to keep or terminate a pregnancy and be stigmatized for either decision. THEY WILL NEVER HAVE TO GO THROUGH LABOR! Women can’t get pregnant without men having sex with them. A women having her legs wide open doesn’t put sperm in her, she’s not the only one who can say no. Pro-lifers have no problem with being vocal about what they expect from female sexuality, but you never here anti-sex campaigns targeting solely men. Men’s sexuality is harder to control though. why? Not because they are naturally more sexual, but because you can’t tell them “don’t have sex or you’ll get pregnant.” (Even the way we talk about sex to women treats pregnancy as a punishment, we use it as our go to scare tactic bust it loses some of its effectiveness when the option for abortion exists) I know abstinence education is taught to everyone when taught in schools, but many programs like “purity balls” are targeted at just women. (To clarify, I don’t agree with abstinence only education, i just don’t understand why if you are all full heartily dedicated to “pro-life” there isn’t more being done to target men when there’s so much targeting women) And even in the general society, men aren’t called sluts or are negatively judged for having numerous previous sex partners. Terms like “pure” are rarely used to describe men. Many men are still ashamed for being virgins. It’s hypocritical to push abstinence harder on one sex then the other when it takes both to get pregnant. It’s not fair to make women out to be the “bad guy” just because the pregnancy is happening in her body.

    • Kelsey, can you please address this one issue I have? If biologically at conception a new and unique living human is created, but does not have equal protection from being killed that a newborn or 18month old has, what is so magical about the 6 inch travel down the birth canal that bestows rights to the baby? Is it a biological procurement, or an ideological procurement of rights, and how was/is that decided?

  29. “Your rant aside, self-defense holds up. Pregnancy resulting in death is not natural or normal. Period. The mother consents to life-sustaining functions, as that is the sole purpose of her womb – to nurture life by providing life-sustaining necessities.” Realized in my previous argument I didn’t address this fully. See above if you would like to know why having a womb isn’t consent. Pregnancy that occurs after condoms and spermicide are used properly, is not normal, and is extremely rare when combined with the proper usage of hormonal birth control. Yet, this is enough to “consent” to pregnancy. If having an extremely low chance of pregnancy occurring is one consenting to pregnancy, it should also be enough to consent to the possibility that you might need to give your life up for your fetus who is minimally an equal human being to you.

    And Terrance H, I went to your blog article on abortion. Hoping to find a good debate, but sadly found mostly arrogance and insults.

  30. rautakyy says:

    Neil, it is good to hear you are not only trying to ban abortion, but also working to resolve the actual social problems that mainly are behind abortions. I would like to hear how, but I understand that is beside the topic here.

    I must say, even though I do not agree with you, I must admire the Gandhian approach of the “pro-life” people. If I was convinced my government is sanctioning torture, or death of thousands of little children, or even letting private companies do such atrocoties year after year, I would have allready organized with the likeminded and taken up arms against the government. Especially so, if I had serious doubts about the democratic process behind such desicions.

    There is nothing especially “academic” nor “pseudo philosophical” about personhood. Do you think the fetus is a person from impregnation or not? I think the child is a person from the moment of birth.

  31. And I would like to discuss a few things with you Terrance H:

    1. real libertarians would not call you a libertarian. Libertarian means socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Tea Partiers are not libertarians. Glen Beck, is not a libertarian (though he sometimes says he is, which may be confusing). Libertarian is NOT a cover all term used to describe any conservative who doesn’t feel he/she is a “Republican”.

    2. “Pro-life people want to save not only the unborn child, but the woman from making a decision that is most often regretted”
    Most women don’t regret getting an abortion, there are some who do and I hope the get the counseling the need to heal, but it is far from the majority and saying that abortion should be illegal for all women because some end up regretting it is unfair.

    3. “Nobody forces women to engage in sexual activity which brings about pregnancy; they make that decision on their own.”
    In the US, a woman is raped every 6 minutes and a woman is battered every 15 seconds. People do force women to engage in sexual activity against their will and it’s not a rare occurrence.
    http://www.amnestyusa.org/violence-against-women/violence-against-women—a-fact-sheet/page.do?id=1108440

    4. “Pregnancy among teens is lowest when they are exposed to abstinence-included education. Many studies have proven it.”
    Abstinence-only and abstinence-included are two very different things. Abstinence included education is still comprehensive sex education. No one is saying all teens should be having sex. Teaching kids they have multiple options empowers teens to make their own choices, and empowering and in trusting that they will make the best decisions for themselves usually leads to smart decisions. This type of education is completely different from the religious based abstinence-only programs. Conservatives don’t have a monopoly on the term; so the success of abstinence-included programs is not a justification for abstinence-only programs, that have continually been shown to not work.

    5. I find it kind of funny that you spend part of your argument in an ABORTION debate insulting lesbians, saying they are not real women and are not even affected by abortion, but the first pro-life feminist you praise Susan B Anthony was a lesbian along with several other major pro-life feminists of her time.

    • Just so you’re clear Kelsey, rape and incest combined make up less than one percent of reasons for abortion, so even if I were willing to grant that as a justifiable reason to abort, you still have to account for all the other reasons motivated by selfishness.

  32. Oooh, missed this one, my bad:

    It would seem that in Kelsey’s opinion, the ability to self-sustain defines one’s humanity. Gee, too bad for all those folks on breathing machines, pace makers, and medication necessary to keep them alive. I guess they are less human because, God forbid, they require external forces to keep them alive.

    Hmm, interesting my argument the entire time has been “no one has the right to live off another person against their will” and I call fetuses fetuses because that’s their scientific name. And all references back to life support are in response to a previous article John wrote which talks about life-support. I can go find the exact one I’m referring to if my arguments feel too out of context for you. I actually support life-support. Machines don’t have rights, he can make them do what ever we want them too. I only object to women being forced to play the role of human life support.

    One biological necessity for everyone is food. I wonder if those who cannot provide that for themselves, like newborns and infants, are less human. No. We can’t say that, because that would be immoral, even by pro-choice standards.

    Instead, we say they require a caretaker. Someone with a legal obligation to provide for that child. But what obligation? This person, mind you, never really gave consent to provide for the child. It’s amoral to force that person to do something they never consented to do. I remember just a few days ago reading an article about a girl in my area who went to prison for giving birth at home and throwing her child away in a 7/11 trashcan. She signed no birth certificate, or papers which certified a legal obligation to do anything with that child. Yet, she’s in jail.

    Actually there are plenty of willing, consenting people to take infants off your hands. Not giving the baby to those people is a direct violation of the babies rights. Unlike a fetus, like I mentioned before, anyone can take care of a child outside the womb and be a willing care taker. No one has to be forced into taking that child, someone will. With a fetus though, you can’t just pluck it out when the mother says it can’t stay in her womb anymore and give it to another family early in the pregnancy. We even have new laws recognizing this and making it easier for the baby to have their rights recognized. You can leave a baby at any hospital, fire department, or police station no questions asked. You walk in, then walk away (of course someone has to be their to take the child). These laws aren’t emphasized enough though, and mentally messed up kids end up throwing away babies. (this may just be a state by state thing though) But the biological parent is under no obligation to do the caring for the child. And yes, if you want to be specific you can say we still force the women to drop off the child or make the phone call to get the child picked up. But hopefully it’s obvious why making a phone call is nothing like forcing someone to use their innate, biological existence to provide for someone else against their will. And if they’re capable of throwing the kid in the dumpster at 7/11 they are capable of making a phone call.

  33. “I remember just a few days ago reading an article about a girl in my area who went to prison for giving birth at home and throwing her child away in a 7/11 trashcan. She signed no birth certificate, or papers which certified a legal obligation to do anything with that child. Yet, she’s in jail.”

    Wow, thanks for clarifying your views. You can’t see that what she did was wrong?

    It is amazing how pro-legalized abortionists deliberately ignore the responsibility of caring for the human beings that someone creates.

    “This train of thought is to point out the flaw in the fetus is a human,”

    Wrong. Absolutely wrong. Science could not be more clear, not to mention the common sense that beings reproduce after the own kind. Check out any mainstream embryology textbook and you’ll see that a new human being is created at conception — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq .

    Fetus is an accurate term, but what kind of fetus is it? Human. Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human teen ==> etc. All are human beings worthy of protection from being destroyed.

    Abortions from rapes are less than 1% of the total. If you propose capital punishment for the completely innocent child you must be super duper pro-capital punishment for the rapist.

  34. rautakyy says:

    It is quite an interresting question how the two sides of this debate in general have come to their respective conclusions. The “pro-choise” have started from a historical backround of demanding womens rights. As we should be able to remember these rights were nonexistant even in the western countries not so long ago, and are in terrible state in many countries even today (mostly due to conservative religious men). Even in western countries the opposition to womens rights traditionally came from the conservative men. Nowadays mainly conservative religious men (but also women) in western world are against abortion, but not anymore they would admit arguing against womens rights. That is not politically correct any more, is it? So, even though values of the conservatives have changed (which is of course against conservative values, to change them, I mean), there are these trenches people have dug them selves in on this particular matter at least.

    Why is it that religious conservatives are mainly found among the “pro-life” side, and feminists and womens rights workers on the “pro-choise” side? Does it say in the bible that human life begins at the moment of impregnation? I think not. Conservative christians do not draw all of their moral choises from the bible, allthough they like to think so. Why is it, that this question of sexuality, and especially womens free sexuality, shows the similarities between the fundamentalists of allmost all religions? Is there some combining factor to those who oppose abortion? Is it just historical payload, from somewhere along the line?

  35. “There is nothing especially “academic” nor “pseudo philosophical” about personhood. Do you think the fetus is a person from impregnation or not? I think the child is a person from the moment of birth.”

    The size, level of development, environment and degree of dependence do not impact the value of human beings. That is the main reason the personhood argument fails.

    Additionally, the personhood argument is lousy philosophy, partly because even the pro-legalized abortionists can’t agree on when the designation starts. “Ethicists” like Peter Singer of Princeton think it is many months after birth, so infanticide is fine if it increases the net happiness of the parents. As perverse as Singer’s views are, at least he is consistent with his philosophy, unlike you.

    Then there is Obama, who didn’t just find a right to abortion in the Constitution, he found a right to a dead baby. If a baby survived the abortion he thinks it is OK to let her die. Paging Dr. Gosnell! (Who at least was more kinder than Obama and would just snip the spinal cord of the baby to kill her quickly).

    Then there is Kelsey, who presumably is pro-legalized partial-birth abortion and more. After all, until that umbilical cord is cut that parasitic baby is forcing the mother to take care of her. Oh, the humanity! As long as you stick a fork in the baby’s head and suck out her brains before the cord is cut your actions are completely moral, right?

    I find it odd that pro-legalized abortionists have no qualms about forcing others to pay for social programs to (supposedly) help others but won’t “force” mothers to carry the children they created for a few months.

  36. When some human beings get to decide which innocent human beings are “persons” deserving of a right to life, bad things happen.

  37. Believe me, as a Human Rights major I struggle with this question too. And that’s why I’m not afraid to say I in vision a world with out abortion as optimal. This is also why I try to do my best to stay away from these arguments. Do I use them at times, yes. But when I use them it’s for a specific purpose. Zygote cells have one programed purpose. Divide and divide again. There’s no cell specialization there. My blood cells are more complex then that. There’s no consciousness driving a zygote, no awareness, it’s just chemical reactions. And when you look at why I use these arguments, it’s to push for why earlier abortions cause less harm. Even at the blastocyst stage, the fetus is naturally very unstable and maintains a naturally high failure rate. So if the genetics aren’t a good match, the blastocyst runs out of carbohydrates (which is the same thing that kills a sperm cell), or any other reason occurs that causes the blastocyst to die it’s still normal and not a great tragedy. The blastocyst itself has cells in it to that aren’t even going to be part of the baby, but the umbilicord and other exterior support systems. Before specialization every cell is as likely to turn into umbilicolcord as any other cell. We can’t even tell the difference between a blastocyst which is going to accidently develop into all umbilicolcord cells from one that would naturally grow into a full functioning human or in some cases two (twins). (excuse me for generalizing, blastocyst is a very specific stage of development yet I keep using it describe all stages between zygote and implantation, continuously switching terms I feel won’t do much for my explanation) But since both have human DNA you treat both as equal humans. I bring this up only to explain that biology and chemistry are very chaotic, complex, and complicated, but one thing is for sure the longer you go in a pregnancy the more complex and stable the organism is getting. The closer one gets to the fetus being able to gain consciousness, feel pain, and sustain itself and the more harm you will do to it as it progresses. Yes, in all phases the fetus is going to die. But like we do with people exterior of the womb we do our best to make that death as comfortable as possible if reasons exist making it inevitable, which in the cases of abortion because it can’t sustain itself when separated from the mother. The only other time I bring up fetus’s not being on par with humans is when trying to point out inconsistencies in the pro-life argument. For example the case of rape argument, we would never justify killing an infant because it’s existence emotionally traumatizes the mother, but there are pro-lifers, and I believe the majority (though I could be wrong), who would say a women can terminate the pregnancy early in if she was raped. So does the fetus have equal rights as a human or not? And if no, what basis do we have for determining what pregnancies can be terminated and when? Is it really as simple as saying when she’s not being selfish? But why do we get to decide what is selfish? Especially when it means we are making her do something with her body against her will.
    And now I bring back my original argument. No human has the right to live off another at any stage of life against the host parties will. We aren’t denying this right to the fetus and granting it to other humans. It’s not a human right. This is why I can understand arguments for wanting “better” methods of abortions, but not ones that want to push the decision to terminate further into the pregnancy when more harm is going to be done.

  38. “Wow, thanks for clarifying your views. You can’t see that what she did was wrong?”
    Hey, Neil. I said she violated the child’s rights. But that the violation has nothing to do with society saying people tacitly consent to things. What she did was wrong, and she should be punished.

    “I find it odd that pro-legalized abortionists have no qualms about forcing others to pay for social programs to (supposedly) help others but won’t “force” mothers to carry the children they created for a few months.”
    Oh yes someone’s money and someone’s body are completely equal. That’s why rape and identity theft get the same punishment. That’s why torture and a bank robbery are equally horrific.

    And no, I’m not pro-partial birth abortions. If the fetus can survive on it’s own, separate from the mother but can still be allowed to be supported by machines, then it has the right to do so that’s right to life. Does anyone actually read my arguments or is this really just about making up the beliefs you all want me to have so you can argue me on things. I never once mentioned partial birth abortion. I also don’t believe the biological parent has the right to ever say no one else can be the fetus’s or child’s caretaker. When science gets to a point where you can transplant the fetus to another women or an artificial womb at any point in the pregnancy, I will be fine with abortion being illegal because unwanted pregnancy will no longer be about forcing women to use their bodies against their will.

    “It is amazing how pro-legalized abortionists deliberately ignore the responsibility of caring for the human beings that someone creates.” So your pro-forced sterilization of the women with the defunct uterus then, cause she knowingly goes about creating blastocysts she can’t care for or did you just not read that argument either. And your pro-forcing people to do things simply because they have the capacity to since it’s their “responsibility”?

  39. “When some human beings get to decide which innocent human beings are “persons” deserving of a right to life, bad things happen.”

    You mean when pro-choicers decide. Since it’s okay for pro-lifers to give women permission to abort for different reasons, such as in the case of rape or when the women’s life is threatened by the pregnancies. Those things can justifiably void the right to life because pro-lifers agree they can.

    And as a side note on third trimester abortions, women who get those in the vast majority of cases are because of incredibly complicated situations. Things such as the pregnancy is threatening her health or the fetus has an illness that will not allow it so survive outside the womb.

  40. Terrance H. says:

    I’m tired of the absurd rants coming from anti-lifers. After your argument has been thoroughly destroyed, your false concerns addressed, you continue spewing the same nonsense, feigning concern for women.

    Let’s clear up one thing right now. If you people cared about women at all, you wouldn’t support the “right.,” or the choice, or whatever other name you wish to give your pro-abortion stance.

    The child is a human being like the rest of us. Outside of individual attributes, the difference between us boils down to developmental abilities. Following, unborn children are in an earlier stage of development than born human beings. And because they are human beings, they have a right to life that no man is allowed to seize – without just cause.

    When the unborn child becomes hostile – unknowingly – the female has a right to defend her life from an imminent threat of death, thus she obtains an abortion to save her life, to protect her womb for future children. The child was invited in my the mother when she engaged in sexual relations, but invited to develop, not to kill. That’s why self-defense holds up.

    When pro-lifers express this view, the anti-lifers like Kelsey put their fingers in their ears and scream “La-la-la-la. You support the murder of a human being. La-la-la-la.” But what might you expect from them? They are wholly irrational people by default.

    Medically abortions take the life of a human being, yes. There is no debate. However, it is justified using the self-defense argument. That is our answer. You don’t like the answer, too bad. But that is our answer and it’s totally rational. Unless you don’t believe people have a right to defend themselves, in which case that would mean if someone came to your home to harm you, you would let them. And that makes you a moron. But I digress….

    As I told you once before, all of your questions and irrational rants can be solved using the same, very basic principles. It’s very easy. I spend less than five minutes, generally, replying to you, because you bring nothing challenging to the table. It’s a lot of maudlin rambling, overlooking principles laid out several times before.

    You can point to other laws as justification for providing abortion when an unthinking anti-lifer brings bodily autonomy to the table, because those other laws would be called precedent. Very simple.

    Roe v. Wade was the wrong decision, just like Plessy v. Ferguson. The Supreme Court is not infallible. In fact, most of the time the law is not applied, but rather, ideological beliefs. Roe and Doe took ideological struggles to a favorable Supreme Court. Nothing more, nothing less. The decision was totally inconsistent with American principles.

    You want an example of a law which has been passed that says one person can use the body of another person? Sure. Try English Common Law and the prohibition on abortion after quickening. Other than that, there’s precedent to outlaw abortion, using very basic principles: 1). Right to Life trumps all other rights; 2). Bodily autonomy is not absolute; and 3). Past and present recognition as unborn children as human beings deserving of protection under the law. The current existence of Fetal Homicide statues is particularly compelling.

    Are you denying the biological purpose of sex is procreation? Perhaps you should read the Origin of Species, again; you know, the Left’s Bible. And that’s all I’m going to say, because I’m not going to dignify your ignorance with a thorough response. It’s plainly obvious what the biological purpose of sex is, using Darwinian principles and common sense.

    The bottom line is that the main biological purpose of sex is reproduction; without it, our species would die off. Sex induces psychological results, some good and some bad, but those are side effects to a very basic, biological drive. So when a woman engages in sexual activity, she is engaging in an act that’s sole purpose is procreation. She cannot, therefore, claim she wasn’t giving tacit approval.

    The pseudo-science of today has taken something as simple as sex and turned it into a complex mix of psychology, biology, and neurology, and for the sake of political correctness. Once you wade through all the nonsense, the purpose of sex is clear, and indisputable.

    Science has forgotten something. “If the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense or it will result in nonsense.” ~ David Cooper

    You got to pick your womb? Who the hell said that? Or, are you just rambling again? I’ll pick the latter.

    The paragraph discussing the child’s womb is idiotic on its face. You forgot the self-defense argument; you know, the one you have trouble understanding. The child’s undeveloped womb and life plays second fiddle to the woman who invited the child in to develop, not to kill. She has a responsibility to protect her life and her womb for future, non-hostile developing children; biologically and morally.

    I quit reading the subsequent paragraph discussing your past pro-life position. If you can’t write clear, utilizing the Enter key so as to ensure your work is accessible, I’m not going to bother with it. I did read so far as to discover your idiotic contention that pro-life arguments are flawed. Gee, that’s funny, because I’m having such an easy time with you by using them. Perhaps you didn’t have any good pro-life arguments to offer, and when you were beaten repeatedly by the pro-choice camp, you figured it must be the whole movement, instead of the person in the mirror.

    Pregnancy that occurs after engaging in sexual congress is wholly normal, as the sole biological purpose of sex is to bring about pregnancy. These are very simple Darwinian principles. I guess you folks just don’t know your “bible.”

    And Terrance H, I went to your blog article on abortion. Hoping to find a good debate, but sadly found mostly arrogance and insults.

    I’m arrogant when I have to be. The person I insulted did nothing but bash my faith, call me names, and exhibit complete and utter ignorance and disregard for life in general, let alone fetal life. I don’t care if I offended him. And I don’t care if I offend you. If this were my blog, my bombast wouldn’t read so kindly.

    real libertarians would not call you a libertarian. Libertarian means socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Tea Partiers are not libertarians. Glen Beck, is not a libertarian (though he sometimes says he is, which may be confusing). Libertarian is NOT a cover all term used to describe any conservative who doesn’t feel he/she is a “Republican”.

    I’m not a libertarian, which is why I don’t come off as a Libertarian. Did you notice the Right placed conspicuously in front of Libertarian? I guess not.

    And why do you imagine I care what you think of my political philosophy? I don’t have to justify anything to you.

    Most women don’t regret getting an abortion, there are some who do and I hope the get the counseling the need to heal, but it is far from the majority and saying that abortion should be illegal for all women because some end up regretting it is unfair.

    Look at the studies. Most women, at one point or another in their life, regret their abortion. Abortion is very damaging to one’s mental health. Go ahead and claim different and watch me destroy it.

    You claim you went to my blog, did you bother to review the post entitled Abortion & Mental Health? I suspect not.

    And I never said abortion should be illegal because of the vast number of mental health issues following. That’s just another nail in the pro-choice coffin, ’tis all. It was intended to address the absurd contention that abortion empowers women; it doesn’t. It hurts them. And you anti-lifers don’t care, because ideology is most important.

    3. “Nobody forces women to engage in sexual activity which brings about pregnancy; they make that decision on their own.”

    In the US, a woman is raped every 6 minutes and a woman is battered every 15 seconds. People do force women to engage in sexual activity against their will and it’s not a rare occurrence.
    http://www.amnestyusa.org/violence-against-women/violence-against-women—a-fact-sheet/page.do?id=1108440

    John addressed this tidbit of foolishness.

    I find it kind of funny that you spend part of your argument in an ABORTION debate insulting lesbians, saying they are not real women and are not even affected by abortion, but the first pro-life feminist you praise Susan B Anthony was a lesbian along with several other major pro-life feminists of her time.

    The “woman” I insulted was not a woman, but a transsexual. The person is really a man, claiming to be a woman. So, good job thoroughly investigating before spouting off.

  41. Terrance H. says:

    You mean when pro-choicers decide. Since it’s okay for pro-lifers to give women permission to abort for different reasons, such as in the case of rape or when the women’s life is threatened by the pregnancies. Those things can justifiably void the right to life because pro-lifers agree they can.

    I don’t support abortion “rights” in cases of rape, so I’m not sure what the hell you’re talking about. What I support is the right of women to defend themselves when the invited child – and he or she is…invited – becomes inadvertently hostile.

    Tell me which group is really irrational. The one that uses less than 1% of all abortions to justify 100% of abortions, or the group who wants to protect women and child both?

  42. I bring debates to the table, for everything you say. You, state the same thing over and over again and say enough said. Well that’s bull shit.

    You say right to life trumps everything. Prove it. Don’t just say it, prove it. You’re the idiot if you think you can just state your opinion over and over and over again and say it’s fact. That’s right, I disagree with you. Go ahead call me an idiot, that’s not an argument. That doesn’t make your point. You can call me what ever you want over, and over, and over again, but that will never show it’s true. And the only people you’re ever going to convince that it’s true are the ones who already agree with you.

    “Look at the studies. Most women, at one point or another in their life, regret their abortion. Abortion is very damaging to one’s mental health. Go ahead and claim different and watch me destroy it”
    Where the hell do you get your statistics? All pro-life sources I’m sure that have no reason to play with statistics. The studies showing most women don’t regret their abortions way out number the ones that do. Here’s what WebMD has to say about the issue, but if you don’t like them there are PLENTY more sources that say the exact same thing.
    http://women.webmd.com/news/20000822/study-says-most-women-dont-regret-abortion

    If you want to stick to strictly darwinism, let’s go. All creatures are up for the equal shit show that is nature. Survival of the fittest. Morality doesn’t exist in nature, it’s a completely social complex. Biology says I can have an abortion simply because I am able to attain one. I have the ability to kill my fetus, hell I have the ability to kill my infant. If you want to get technical about infanticide was also a natural part of keeping the species alive. When the population became to big and unable to sustain, you kill the infants first because they have less to contribute at that time. Animal species still do this. But we exist in society, and we create the rules. Nature and biology aren’t justifications to morality because the two exist separately. Biology is about doing whatever it takes to sustain the species. Abortions don’t endanger the species, why because there are plenty of people still having wanted babies. There are even some arguments that say abortions are helping the species. You say biology says women must take responsibility. If biology did say that, there would be no way of disconnecting the mother from the fetus without killing her. That’s the only power biology has of making you do anything, you either do it or you die. Everything else, is socially driven.

    So this is about you. You saying YOUR morality simply must be universal, end of story. You saying the courts made the wrong decisions. You saying you get to dictate other peoples life and pick what rights trump what, end of story.

    You think you crush me. You’re not even debating me! Your whining that the world isn’t what you want it to be. You say I just rant and ramble on, well at least I’m actually saying things. At least I’m still backing up my beliefs with justification.

    “If the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense or it will result in nonsense.” ~ David Cooper
    Science shouldn’t exist at all then because you just have it all figured out. Science just messes things up, like giving us theories of evolution and women the capacity to not be slaves to their biology. That science, it’s really messed up.

    “Other than that, there’s precedent to outlaw abortion, using very basic principles: 1). Right to Life trumps all other rights; 2). Bodily autonomy is not absolute; and 3). Past and present recognition as unborn children as human beings deserving of protection under the law. The current existence of Fetal Homicide statues is particularly compelling.”

    These basic principles also means the government has the right to draft you into becoming human life support when ever it pleases. You have two kidneys, you only need one to live. Bob has the right to life which trumps all other rights including your right to keep your kidney because bodily autonomy is not absolute, you are required to give Bob your kidney to save his life (I didn’t even need the third principle). This is especially true if you got into a car accident with him, which has caused him to need your kidney. You know that when you drive there is a risk of accident.

    And I do believe I have the right to defend myself, but not just when my life is being threatened. If a rapist tries or is using my body against my will, I get to defend myself and if he dies, I did what I had to to stop him from using my body. I did not invite him in by having my door open. I did not invite him in by living alone. I did not even invite him in by flirting with him earlier in the day. Do I know the risk of being raped exists? Yes, absolutely. Did I not take known, basic precautions to reduce the likelihood that I might be raped. Were locks on doors not designed with the sole purpose of keeping strangers out? Yup, they were. But even with all these things I failed to do, I still have the right to defend myself against rape.

    “You got to pick your womb? Who the hell said that? Or, are you just rambling again? I’ll pick the latter.”
    You said I tacitly consent to becoming pregnant for two reasons: I had sex and I have a womb. Having sex comes with risks, and having a womb comes with risks. Well I sure never got to pick having a vagina and a womb, which really sucks since the only way for me to have sex is with my vagina. So when men get to have sex without fearing being used by another person, I get to be a slave to my biology. Which is not something I ever got to pick.

    “She has a responsibility to protect her life and her womb for future, non-hostile developing children; biologically and morally.”
    I love how you keep reducing everything a women gets to do down to responsibility. I can’t even choose that I want to live just because I want to live, I have the responsibility to protect my life so I can make babies in the future. After all the biological purpose for their being a female sex is so they can gestate the babies and continue the species, so simply by essence of me being female I tacitly consent to the life purpose my biological sex has determined for me. And not only do I have a responsibility to my species, but also to the “children” that haven’t even been conceived yet. Your “Self-defense” shouldn’t even really be called “self-defense”, it should be called future baby defense (presuming they aren’t hostile either).

    I also like to put out there how some of the arguments, the ones I find to be some of my best arguments, you feel you don’t even need to address. Why? Because of your arrogance again and because as long as you just say I’m rambling, you can, how did you put it, stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la. You don’t like what I have to say, so it’s much better to just go about insulting me instead of actually debating me.

    “you figured it must be the whole movement, instead of the person in the mirror.” And this exact same reason couldn’t just as likely be why you changed movements? Of course not! You found Jesus and have been enlightened to absolute morality! I know, I know I’m not supposed to bring up religion because all types of people of any religion can feel this way. And the fact that you magically changed your tone has nothing to do with your finding Jesus and would have happened anyways because “smart” people always come around.

    In the end though, abortion is still going to stay legal. My rights are still going to be recognized. But at least you will always have your blog, so that you can continue to voice your opinion on everything you think is wrong with the world while the rest of us go about our business.

  43. So let’s go over the basic premise of your three arguments, because basically they come down to three.

    1. The fetus is alive and human
    2. All human’s have an equal right to life without exception until certain circumstance arise
    3. The mother must host the fetus because she had sex and the biological purpose for sex is to make a baby

    1. this really has no impact on my beliefs

    2. We pull people off life support, we kill people with the death penalty, we kill people with self-defense. These people are human too, at no point do they suddenly become un-human. We pick which exceptions we feel are morally appropriate to strip a person of their right to life. If we decide a person does not have the right to use another person bodies to support their own, we are just as capable of making this an exception because their is no reason it can’t be an exception besides you feel it’s a selfish reason.

    3. The scientific purpose for abortion is to disconnect the women from the fetus. Biology does not affect her capacity to do this. She has as much the capacity to start the pregnancy as she does to end it. It is society, and other people’s morality that say she can’t do this. Accepting that one human does not have the right to live off another’s body, their innate physical existences, changes nothing else. It doesn’t make infanticide legal, it doesn’t destroy the foundations of society (cause if it did the end of the world would have already come about). It only conflicts with your morality and what you want for the world.

    So it comes down to which do we feel should take precedent, every persons right to life or every persons right to not be required by the government to be lived of off by another person (biological slavery).

    • Your premise 3 is incomplete. Parents in general and mothers specifically have an obligation to their children that strangers do not have. Parents have a moral obligation for the welfare and protection of their children by virtue of the parent–mother/child relationship wheter there is self sacrsifice involved or not.

  44. Terrance H. says:

    I bring debates to the table, for everything you say.

    No, you don’t. You bring foolishness and repetition. Every argument you present is answered with the exact same principles I laid out in my original response. You ask the same questions with different wording, and nothing more.

    You, state the same thing over and over again and say enough said.

    Yes, because they are basic principles that deftly destroy pro-abortion stance. Sooner or later you will come to the realization that your position is untenable

    You say right to life trumps everything. Prove it. Don’t just say it, prove
    it.

    Are you really that dense? I shouldn’t have to prove it, because logic does it for me.

    But, why not educate ya?

    If our very existence is not protected and is subject to the whims of other people, then indeed, what the hell is protected? In what regard would you assume these other rights be held?

    I would also encourage you to review the Declaration of Independence, paying special attention to the following statement.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    John Witherspoon, a Founding Father, said:

    Some nations have given parents the power of life and death over their children, and Hobbes insists that children are the goods and absolute property of their parents and that they may alienate them and sell them either for a time, or for life. But both of these rights seem ill founded, because they are contrary to the end of this right viz. instruction and protection.

    And also:

    We have denied the power of life and death to parents.

    And also:

    The fact that legislation in many countries, perhaps even departing from basic principles of their Constitution, has determined not to punish these practices against life, and even to make them altogether legal, is both a disturbing symptom and a significant cause of grave moral decline.

    And also:

    One of the most respected commentators on English law, and one who reflected common law practice just prior to the beginning of modern legislation on abortion, was the eighteenth-century author William Blackstone. In treating of the rights of persons, Blackstone distinguishes between absolute and relative rights. Absolute rights pertain to each single person prior to an established social relationship. Some believe the American Declaration of Independence, written the decade after Blackstone’s work appeared, was influenced by his treatment of rights. The absolute rights are those to personal security, to liberty, and to property. Primary under personal security is a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life. Blackstone explains: Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in the contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. An infant en ventre sa mere, or in the mother’s womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes.

    Furthermore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the United States of America, states “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” which are “life, liberty, and the security of the person.”

    See: Works of John Witherspoon. Vol. VII, lecture xi, p. 68.; Works of John Witherspoon. Vol. VII, lecture xi, p. 86. Works of John Witherspoon. Vol. VII, lecture xi, “Relation of Parents and Children,” p. 91; United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Preamble, paragraph 1.

    Where the hell do you get your statistics? All pro-life sources I’m sure that have no reason to play with statistics. The studies showing most women don’t regret their abortions way out number the ones that do. Here’s what WebMD has to say about the issue, but if you don’t like them there are PLENTY more sources that say the exact same thing.

    You have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about. The quoted study was done by pro-choice psychologist Brenda Major who also authored the APA Task Force Report On Abortion.

    Let us have a look at that paper and see how they arrived at their conclusions, shall we?

    From the Major study, the one you cited without reading:

    A critical evaluation of the published literature revealed that the majority of studies suffered from methodological problems, often severe in nature. Given the state of the literature, a simple calculation of effect sizes or count of the number of studies that showed an effect in one direction versus another was considered inappropriate. The quality of the evidence that produced those effects must be considered to avoid misleading conclusions. Accordingly, the TFMHA emphasized the studies it judged to be most methodology rigorous to arrive at its conclusions.

    In layman, that means a single psychologist, admittedly pro-choice, looked a compilation of abortion/mental health studies and tossed out the majority which showed that abortion causes mental health issues, claiming methodological error but failing to explain. Real objective, huh?

    The APA also put out this statement, which speaks volumes to me and most sensible people:

    Nonetheless, it is clear that some women do experience sadness, grief, and feelings of loss following termination of a pregnancy, and some experience clinically significant disorders, including depression and anxiety. However, the TFMHA reviewed no evidence sufficient to support the claim that an observed association between abortion history and mental health was caused by the abortion per se, as opposed to other factors.

    The bold text speaks volumes, doesn’t it? Per se

    You asked where I get my statistics? Let’s see.

    How about The British Journal of Psychiatry. Is that a “pro-life source” in your opinion? And let’s see what the study shows.

    Reactions to abortion and subsequent mental health

    David M. Fergusson, PhD, L. John Horwood, MSc and Joseph M. Boden, PhD

    Christchurch Health and Development Study, Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago, Christchurch School of Medicine and
    Health Sciences, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Correspondence: David M. Fergusson, Christchurch Health and Development Study, University of Otago, Christchurch School of Medicine and
    Health Sciences, PO Box 4345, Christchurch, New Zealand. Email: dm.fergusson@otago.ac.nz

    Declaration of interest

    None.

    Background

    There has been continued interest in the extent to which women have positive and negative reactions to abortion.

    Aims

    To document emotional reactions to abortion, and to examine the links between reactions to abortion and subsequent mental health
    outcomes.

    Method

    Data were gathered on the pregnancy and mental health history of a birth cohort of over 500 women studied to the age of 30.

    Results

    Abortion was associated with high rates of both positive and negative emotional reactions; however, nearly 90% of respondents believed that the abortion was the right decision. Analyses showed that the number of negative responses to the abortion was associated with increased levels of subsequent mental health disorders (P<0.05). Further analyses suggested that, after adjustment for confounding, those having an abortion and reporting negative reactions had rates of mental health disorders that were approximately 1.4–1.8 times higher than those not having an abortion.

    Conclusions

    Abortion was associated with both positive and negative emotional reactions. The extent of negative emotional reactions appeared to modify the links between abortion and subsequent mental health problems.

    Read the study and discover:

    Implications:

    These conclusions have implications for both service provision and the interpretation of the law in jurisdictions such as New Zealand, and England and Wales. The finding that the extent of distress caused by the abortion is a predictor of subsequent mental health suggests the need for providers of abortion to: conduct thorough screening of abortion-related distress; to carry out adequate follow-up of those showing distress; and to counsel those showing distress about future mental health risks and the need for support. 10,21 In terms of legal issues, our findings have important implications for jurisdictions such as England and Wales, and New Zealand where over 90% of abortions are authorised on the grounds that proceeding with the unwanted pregnancy would pose a serious threat to the woman’s mental health.22,23

    And also:

    There is no evidence in this research that would suggest that unwanted pregnancies that come to term were associated with increased risks of mental health problems or that abortion mitigated the risks of mental health problems in women having unwanted pregnancy.

    Another one of my “pro-life sources” is the British Medical Journal.

    Let’s, just for fun, peruse that study, shall we?

    The increased risk of suicide after an induced abortion indicates either common risk factors for both or harmful effects of induced abortion on mental health.

    Here is an article from a British newspaper discussing the Royal College’s – Britain’s APA equivalent – warning.

    Women may be at risk of mental health breakdowns if they have abortions, a medical royal college has warned. The Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health.

    This overturns the consensus that has stood for decades that the risk to mental health of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy outweighs the risks of living with the possible regrets of having an abortion.

    Another one of my “pro-life sources” is the National Institutes of Health:

    Analysis of this substance abuse variable showed that a report of substance abuse following a first pregnancy was associated significantly with (a) abortion for all women, (b) abortion for adolescents, and (c) abortion for women over 19 years of age. Women who aborted a first pregnancy were five times more likely to report subsequent substance abuse than women who carried to term, and they were four times more likely to report substance abuse compared to those who suffered a natural loss of their first pregnancy (i.e., due to miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, or stillbirth)

    Another one of my “pro-life sources” is the Internet Journal of Pediatrics and Neo Natology.

    Background: The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between maternal history of induced abortion and subsequent frequency of child-directed aggressive behavior in a sample of mothers of children who have been abused or neglected. The mothers were either the perpetrators of the maltreatment or they allowed someone else to mistreat their children.

    Methods: The participants were 237 mothers who were residents of Baltimore and were receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) at the time interviews were conducted in the 1980s. Women with and without a history of abortion were compared relative to child-directed physical aggression after controlling for the experience of a non-voluntary perinatal loss as well as socio-demographic, family of origin, and partner aggression variables associated with the choice to abort.

    Results: Abortion history was associated with more frequently maternal slapping, hitting, kicking or biting, beating, and use of physical punishment in general.

    Conclusion: In addition to contributing to the literature on factors related to the frequency of engaging in physically aggressive behaviors, this study adds to our knowledge of variables associated with the choice to abort.

    I should ask: Need I explain the likely mental issues suffered by those who beat their children, or are you good on that one? Do you understand?

    Also from the National Institutes of Health:

    Those who had had an abortion had elevated rates of substance use and problems. Those who gave birth to a child had reduced rates of alcohol problems and cannabis use. These associations persisted after control for confounders. However, those women who still lived with the father of the aborted fetus were not at increased risk.

    And another

    Women with miscarriage had significantly more anxiety and depression at T1 than the general population, while women with induced abortion had significantly more anxiety at all time points and more depression at T1 and T2.

    I would encourage you to review the following article authored by the ProLIfe OB/GYNs; it’s a response to Brenda Major’s study.

    Or you could continue being an ignoramus and reject it out of hand because it comes from an admitted pro-life source. But it’s interesting you didn’t reject the Major study, as she is admittedly pro-choice. Weird, huh?

    Perhaps you should consider the following quote from the Canadian Medical Journal contained in the paper cited above:

    The abortion debate is so highly charged that a state of respectful listening on either side is almost impossible to achieve. This debate is conducted publicly in religious, ideological and political terms: forms of discourse in which detachment is rare. But we do seem to have the idea in medicine that science offers us a more dispassionate means of analysis. To consider abortion as a health issue, indeed as a medical “procedure,” is to remove it from metaphysical and moral argument and to place it in a pragmatic realm where one deals in terms such as safety, equity of access, outcomes and risk–benefit ratios, and where the prevailing ethical discourse, when it is evoked, uses secular words like autonomy and patient choice.” (CMAJ, 2003. p. 169)

    I have more studies as well, but I’m not going to waste my time posting the results. I’ll just provide you the necessary citation and you can look them up yourself.

    Ready? You sure? O.K.

    • Coleman, P. K. (2006). Resolution of unwanted pregnancy during adolescence through abortion versus childbirth: Individual and family predictors and psychological consequences. The Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 903-911.

    • Coleman, P. K. et al. (2009), Induced Abortion and Anxiety, Mood, and Substance Abuse Disorders: Isolating the Effects of Abortion in the National Comorbidity Survey. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 770-776.

    • Coleman, P.K., & Nelson, E.S. (1998). The quality of abortion decisions and college students’ reports of post-abortion emotional sequelae and abortion attitudes. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 425-442.

    • Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C., & Cougle, J. (2005). Substance use among pregnant women in the context of previous reproductive loss and desire for current pregnancy. British Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 255-268.

    • Dingle, K., et al. (2008). Pregnancy loss and psychiatric disorders in young women: An Australian birth cohort study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 193, 455-460.

    • Fayote, F.O., Adeyemi, A.B., Oladimeji, B.Y. (2004). Emotional distress and its correlates. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 5, 504-509.

    • Fergusson, D.M. et al. (2008). Abortion and mental health disorders: Evidence from a 30-year longitudinal study, The British Journal of Psychiatry, 193, 444-451.

    • Hope, T. L., Wilder, E. I., & Watt, T. T. (2003). The relationships among adolescent pregnancy, pregnancy resolution, and juvenile delinquency, The Sociological Quarterly, 44, 555-576.

    • Miller, W. B., Pasta, D. J., & Dean, C. L. (1998). Testing a model of the psychological consequences of abortion. In L. J. Beckman and S. M. Harvey (eds). The new civil war: The psychology, culture, and politics of abortion. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    • Pedersen W. (2008). Abortion and depression: A population-based longitudinal study of young women. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 36 (4):424-8.

    • Pedersen, W. (2007). Addiction. Childbirth, abortion and subsequent substance use in young women: a population-based longitudinal study, 102 (12), 1971-78.

    • Pope, L. M. et al. (2001). Post-abortion psychological adjustment: Are minors at increased risk? Journal of Adolescent Health, 29, 2-11.

    • Reardon, D. C., Coleman, P. K., & Cougle, J. (2004) Substance use associated with prior history of abortion and unintended birth: A national cross sectional cohort study.
    Am. Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 26, 369-383.

    • Reardon D.C., Ney, P.G. (2002) Abortion and subsequent substance abuse. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 26, 61-75.

    • Rees, D. I. & Sabia, J. J. (2007) The relationship between abortion and depression: New evidence from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Medical Science Monitor, 13(10), 430-36.

    • Sivuha, S. Predictors of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Following Abortion in a Former Soviet Union Country. Journal of Prenatal & Perinatal Psych & Health,17, 41-61 (2002).

    • Slade, P., Heke, S., Fletcher, J., & Stewart, P. (1998). A comparison of medical and surgical methods of termination of pregnancy: Choice, psychological consequences, and satisfaction with care. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology,105,1288-95.

    • Söderberg et al. (1998). Emotional distress following induced abortion. A study of its incidence and determinants among abortees in Malmö, Sweden. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 79, 173-8.

    • Suliman et al. (2007) Comparison of pain, cortisol levels, and psychological distress in women undergoing surgical termination of pregnancy under local anaesthesia vs. intravenous sedation. BMC Psychiatry, 7 (24), p.1-9.

    • Suri, R, Altshuler, L., Hendrick, V. et al. (2004). The impact of depression and fluoxetine treatment on obstetrical outcome. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 7, 193-200.

    All of those studies indicate that abortion is associated with subsequent mental health issue, suicide, substance abuse, and so on. Educate yourself.

    Please note that all the studies I cited appear in peer-reviewed journals and websites.

    As to your biology rant, abortion is unnatural. So, there goes that logic – right out the window. You’re sorta gettin’ kinda good at that, huh? Throwing logic out the window, I mean.

    So this is about you. You saying YOUR morality simply must be universal, end of story. You saying the courts made the wrong decisions. You saying you get to dictate other peoples life and pick what rights trump what, end of story

    Morality aside, I’m sticking up for American principles. I want the law to be implemented the way it was intended to be implemented.

    You think you crush me. You’re not even debating me! Your whining that the world isn’t what you want it to be. You say I just rant and ramble on, well at least I’m actually saying things. At least I’m still backing up my beliefs with justification.

    You make an asinine statement, I reply. That’s debate. I have demolished all of your arguments, and not just because I’m intelligent, but for a few reasons: 1). I’ve written a published, pro-life book which means I had to research thoroughly; 2). I used to be pro-choice, so I know exactly what you’re going to say before you say it, which gives me an advantage; and 3). Not only do I have logic on my side, but the facts as well. Abortion is wholly indefensible and it shows.

    These basic principles also means the government has the right to draft you into becoming human life support when ever it pleases.

    No, it doesn’t. I didn’t offer to give Bob my kidney; I didn’t invite him to one of my kidneys. In contrast, however, the woman invited the child into her body when she engaged in an action that’s sole purpose is procreation.

    Gee, that was hard…

    You said I tacitly consent to becoming pregnant for two reasons: I had sex and I have a womb.

    No, I didn’t say that. I mentioned that the woman has a right, should the child become hostile, to defend herself and her womb for future children. I didn’t say the child was invited in simply because the woman has a womb; I said the child was invited in because she had sex. Try and follow, would ya?

    I love how you keep reducing everything a women gets to do down to responsibility. I can’t even choose that I want to live just because I want to live, I have the responsibility to protect my life so I can make babies in the future. After all the biological purpose for their being a female sex is so they can gestate the babies and continue the species, so simply by essence of me being female I tacitly consent to the life purpose my biological sex has determined for me.

    Do you realize how utter ridiculous your responses have become? Is this what I have reduced you to?

    Tact consent means action; you must engage in an action wilfully. Simply being female – something you cannot control – is not an action and is not willful.

    If you engage in an activity which has been known to bring about pregnancy from the beginning of human history, you have consented to the results of that activity. You do not have an obligation to have sex because you are a female; no more than a man has an obligation to have sex because he is a male. It doesn’t work that way.

    I also like to put out there how some of the arguments, the ones I find to be some of my best arguments, you feel you don’t even need to address. Why?

    You don’t have a good argument. None of them are good. They’re all quite ridiculous in fact. And why? Because abortion is indefensible.

    In the end though, abortion is still going to stay legal.

    Don’t bet the farm on that. My generation is the most pro-life generation since World War II. Just think what might happen as we get older, more conservative, and start sitting in places like the Supreme Court? Hmmm…..

    I’m finished with you now. John and the other fellow were doing a fine job of thrashing you.

  45. Terrance H. says:

    She rejects moral arguments, John, and has said as much. Someone who cannot understand the importance of morality is so far to the Left you can’t even see them. Best not to bother with folks like that, but I do it ’cause it’s fun.

  46. First source, where is the researcher from Christchurch Health and Development Study. Pro-life source.

    second source, “The increased risk of suicide after an induced abortion indicates either common risk factors for both or harmful effects of induced abortion on mental health.”
    Even they say they’re not sure if there’s causation.

    third source, “Women MAY be at risk of mental health breakdowns” wow a may is enough to overturn an entire consensus, plus you have no proof these women would have been better off if only they had kept the child.

    fourth source, “Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)” they studied poor women. Yup, that’s an all encompassing study.

    fifth source, they weren’t predisposed to substance abuse? The study proved that?

    sixth sources, “Those who gave birth to a child had reduced rates of alcohol problems and cannabis use.” So the fact that these women are taking care of children plays no role in their choices to use drugs? “significantly more” what is significantly more? 10% more, 50% more? Simply saying significant is subjective.

    seventh source, is a nice tidbit of information, but not relevant to your argument.

    “As to your biology rant, abortion is unnatural. So, there goes that logic – right out the window. You’re sorta gettin’ kinda good at that, huh? Throwing logic out the window, I mean.”
    People have been chemically inducing abortions all the way back to prehistoric times.

    “Don’t bet the farm on that. My generation is the most pro-life generation since World War II. Just think what might happen as we get older, more conservative, and start sitting in places like the Supreme Court?”

    What generation do you think I’m in? And Roe vs. Wade was 1973, way after World War II. And just because we get older doesn’t mean we are all going to inevitably become more conservative.

    “Someone who cannot understand the importance of morality” I have morality, just not your morality.

  47. Terrance H. says:

    First Source: He is an admitted pro-choice researcher. Christchurch is the name of the town in which the University resides, genius. Go read a book.

    Second Source: Other studies consider the cause and have attributed it to abortion. Read them. One individual study never produces a sweeping conclusion; you have to look at all the studies and base your opinion on the cumulative evidence. I’ve done that; you haven’t.

    Third Source: Review the first study again. No evidence that carrying to term puts women at risk for developing mental issues. No evidence whatsoever. “May be at risk” is the wording used by the Royal College who is overly cautious in everything they say, and for good reason. Unlike the APA, the Royal College cares about the truth, not ideology. Their studies indicate a risk, and so do all the other studies. Cumulative, remember?

    Fourth Source: Do you not understand what cumulative means? You look at all different type of women in different situations. Some studies include poor women, some black, some white, some affluent, and so on and so forth. You take all of those studies, put them together, and a strong conclusions based on cumulative evidence is made.

    Fifth Source: Yes, it took past mental health issues and substance abuse into consideration. Perhaps you should read the study before spouting off.

    Sixth Source: Read the whole study instead of just the abstract and you’ll find out.

    Regardless if people have been inducing abortions for thousands of years or not, it’s still unnatural.

    Read the studies which indicate how pro-life my generation is.

    And you have no morality.

    You need geography lessons, lessons on how to properly interpret scientific research, and an education in general.

  48. Sex is an action, but pregnancy is an action too. One I’m still capable of changing while it’s happening.

    Also, women didn’t get to choice their sex any more then they got to choice the biological purpose for sex. But it’s crazy to think people would want to have sex for reasons other then procreation. That is why homosexuals have sex after all.

    And I’m going to state these two points again to see if they’ll ever be addressed.
    We pull people off life support, we kill people with the death penalty, we kill people with self-defense. These people are human too, at no point do they suddenly become un-human. We pick which exceptions we feel are morally appropriate to strip a person of their right to life. If we decide a person does not have the right to use another person’s body to support their own, we are just as capable of making this an exception because there is no reason it can’t be an exception besides some say it’s immoral. So it comes down to which do we feel should take precedent, every persons right to life or every persons right to not be required by the government to be lived of off by another person (biological slavery).

    • I have adequately addressed the difference between abortion, capital punishment and removal of life support in “One of these things is not like the other”. Abortion is wholly different than capital punishment and removal of lifae support.

  49. Terrance H. says:

    You make less and less sense every post. Arg.

    Currently, you’re capable of terminating your pregnancy without legal effect. But I guarantee that will not always be the case.

    Homosexuality is a perversion. But the topic isn’t about homosexuality, now is it? Regardless of the psychological reasons one might engage in sexual congress, the point I’m making is that the sole biological purpose of sex is reproduction, which means women cannot claim they were not consenting through action.

    I oppose pulling people off life-support; I reject the death penalty, but it’s intent is to punish guilty people who have lost their rights by committing a crime; and killing people via self-defense is justified. Abortion is not justified unless the fetus poses an imminent threat.

    Your argument is basically two wrongs make a right. How idiotic.

    It’s not biological slavery when there is consent; the woman consented via tacit approval.

    See? Same principles answers all your questions and dumb arguments. The very same.

  50. “Currently, you’re capable of terminating your pregnancy without legal effect. But I guarantee that will not always be the case.”

    You have zero guarantee of that. And even if I couldn’t get one in the US, I could always go to Canada. Or are you going to make it illegal for pregnant women to leave the country as well?

    And I go back to biology doesn’t force you to do anything, unless it will kill you, only people do. And you still have no other basis for it’s automatically “tacit consent” then because biology dictates it to be that way.

    And what about the women who knowingly creates blastocysts she can’t care for, what would you like the law to do about her? She’s a serial killer after all. They all keep dying because they can’t attach to her womb.

    And no John, it again comes back to you believing “justice” is enough of a justification for taking away that person’s life. Another example I have is war, when we bomb an area we know we are risking killing innocent people and sometimes they are even purposefully included as part of the target, so we deny them life as well.

  51. Re. pulling people off life support: To legally remove someone from life support who is not conscious you must demonstrate that there is little or no hope of recovery and that you are acting in that person’s best interests, as they would so act if they were conscious. Abortion fails on both counts.

    Terrance, you rock. I subscribed to your blog and will comment there when I get some more time. Blessings to you.

  52. Re. pulling people off life support: To legally remove someone from life support who is not conscious you must demonstrate that there is little or no hope of recovery and that you are acting in that person’s best interests, as they would so act if they were conscious. Abortion fails on both counts.
    Except when fetuses have formation defects that won’t allow them to survive outside the womb. But abortions would still not be allowed in these cases because that’s “actively killing them”.

  53. And of course you get to decide what’s in the best interest of the women and the fetus, not the women carrying the fetus.

  54. And I’m going to say it again. Consent is only consent if it’s retractible. Consent is not a donation.

    And statutory rape was brought up before. I expressed my views on it. But legally, according to US law, young teens can’t consent to sex. If they can’t consent to sex, how could they possibly “consent” to pregnancy?

    And whether one is for or against abortion only in the case of rape or when it’s threatening the life of the mother, they both have their hypocritical elements. If one is fine with abortion during rape then the every person has a right to life argument doesn’t hold up and if you are against abortion in the case of rape the she’s required because she chose to have sex argument doesn’t hold up and it’s no different from hooking a person up to another against their will and then saying you can’t be disconnected because their life is a jeopardy.

    And what about women who get pregnant but have pelvises to small to deliver the child? Not only is she required to carry the fetus for 9 months, but she also consents to being cut open whether she wants to be or not. Or does that count as “self-defense” because it isn’t a “natural” consequence of sex? Though obviously her womb won’t be usable by any other fetus later because she just can’t give birth at all without killing it during a natural birth and needing to be cut open again.

  55. “Re. pulling people off life support: To legally remove someone from life support who is not conscious you must demonstrate that there is little or no hope of recovery and that you are acting in that person’s best interests, as they would so act if they were conscious. Abortion fails on both counts.
    Except when fetuses have formation defects that won’t allow them to survive outside the womb. But abortions would still not be allowed in these cases because that’s “actively killing them”.”

    I know several people who were counseled to abort for those reasons. They declined and now have healthy, happy kids. Not all those cases work out that well, but in our overly litigious society doctors are quick to abort to avoid lawsuits. It reminds me of Dr. Nick Riviera from The Simpsons: “Just to be on the safe side, we better pull the plug.” Hurrying to kill rarely helps a situation.

  56. “And of course you get to decide what’s in the best interest of the women and the fetus, not the women carrying the fetus.”

    How about 10 years of appeals for the fetus, just like convicted murderers get, then we can ask her.

  57. “How about 10 years of appeals for the fetus, just like convicted murderers get, then we can ask her.”
    Oh right, I forgot murders are hooked up to another person, currently violating the rights of another person not just being punished for what’s already happened and can’t be changed, while lawyers figure out appeals.

  58. “I know several people who were counseled to abort for those reasons. They declined and now have healthy, happy kids. Not all those cases work out that well, but in our overly litigious society doctors are quick to abort to avoid lawsuits. It reminds me of Dr. Nick Riviera from The Simpsons: “Just to be on the safe side, we better pull the plug.” Hurrying to kill rarely helps a situation”

    There are some cases where the death of child once it’s born is likely, and some where it is definite. Do you really feel nothing for women who will have no choice, but to go through labor knowing that when the physical pain of labor is finally over, the emotional pain from watching her child die in your arms will only have just begun? And your friends still got a choice, and they made it for what they felt was best for them. Don’t deny that choice to other women.

  59. You are ignoring the most important point: If you abort, there is a 100% chance of death. If you wait, it is less than 100%.

    Of course I feel for them. I just know that hurrying up to kill doesn’t help them. Do you think that makes their pain go away? I’m familiar with many stories of how the women were glad they delivered first. As sad as it was, they had no regrets and were able to bond with and release the child. That may not happen in all cases. But there are very, very few situations in life that killing an innocent human being improves.

  60. “Of course I feel for them. I just know that hurrying up to kill doesn’t help them. Do you think that makes their pain go away? I’m familiar with many stories of how the women were glad they delivered first. As sad as it was, they had no regrets and were able to bond with and release the child. That may not happen in all cases. But there are very, very few situations in life that killing an innocent human being improves.”
    There are also women who know they won’t be able to handle watching their child die, and feel more comfortable with the abortion. I’m not saying every women should abort or that they should rush that decision, but not giving the women a choice at all won’t help her. There are situations that will 100% of the time lead to death after birth. People handle things differently and know they’re own limits. Mandating how people should go about grieving won’t work. And who’s to say it’s not in the best interest of the fetus to abort it if it’s going to die any ways? Our society is so afraid of death. While we are willing to let cats and dogs be put out of their misery, we require that people suffer. I’m sure birth is no picnic for the fetus either. And depending on the disorder, separating the child from the mother then letting it die of natural causes can also be extremely painful. Ending the life quickly while the fetus is still not fully developed, may not be the worse way to go by comparison.

    Also, why do we let doctors disconnect, cut the umbilical, the child from the mother if it means the child is going to die? Wouldn’t that Doctor also be denying the child’s right to live? Shouldn’t the women just stay connected to the child until it either dies on it’s own, or her body disconnects itself from the child?

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: