Why liberals will never be pro-life, Part 2

Not long ago I offered why I believe liberals will never be pro-life.  In the post I referenced President Obama’s view that babies are punishments, and contraceptive activist Sandra Fluke who called babies barriers to success.  Well, recently I was in a debate which was recorded for the site Reasonable Doubts which created quite the discussion.  Below are some of the comments thus far from pro-choice advocates which further convinces me that liberals will never be pro-life because of the way they view the pre-born.

Trina says: November 14, 2012 at 9:43 pm

But., a woman’s right to choose is the only relevant factor. That’s the only argument you need- women are not mindless incubators and do not have to accept the presence of a parasite if they do not choose to.

Nepenthe says: November 14, 2012 at 11:38 pm
What makes the argument that the developing baby in the womb is a parasite so loathsome is the underlying intention to make the baby to be an affront to the mother, an invader, an attacker, an enemy. It is designed to replace feelings of nurturing and love with hostility and resentment. The instinct of motherhood is quite strong and not easily abridged, therefore creating a mere indifference is insufficient.

Yes, all women feel the instinct of motherhood at all times, because women are all the same. Women are all pre-mommies; women who don’t have children inevitably regret their terrible mistake. Women like myself would never feel that an embryo occupying our bodies is an invader or attacker unless someone else, probably a man who has real man thoughts, planted that feeling in our minds. When I wake covered in cold sweat from a nightmare about being pregnant is probably the result of indigestion and propaganda; after all, I’m a woman and my purpose is making babies. Plus, pregnancies never go wrong and in no case is a fetus actually killing its “mommy”.

Furthermore, women never become pregnant as a result of rape, where a conceptus has been violently forced into their bodies. That’s totally unlike an invasion and results in happy, fluffy lady feelings in all real women.

The question is, are the arguments presented sound not what sex are the debaters.

I certainly never tire of men dispassionately debating the course of my future as a fun intellectual exercise. It doesn’t feel dehumanizing at all, especially when the arguments of one side explicitly rely on my non-personhood and non-individuality.

hotshoe says: November 15, 2012 at 2:13 am

I already did. I noted that the size, level of development, location and degree of dependency are not reasons to ignore their right to life. Those are the reasons typically given by pro-aborts to rationalize away the right to life and to justify abortion based on vague definitions of “personhood.”

You’re either lying to try to fool the rubes or you’ve deluded yourself that you aren’t a loathsome anti-human Forced-Birther.

“Right-to-life” is the reason typically given by pro-female-slavery Forced-Birthers to take away a woman’s autonomy and to justify treating women like breeding cattle.

Horrible people like you should never be allowed to have any input into anyone else’s decisions. Never. Not even a decision about what your friends (if you have any) should have for breakfast, much less a life-altering decision by a woman who knows better than anyone else what she is willing to bear.

hotshoe says: November 15, 2012 at 2:47 am

The arguments about embryos being full-fledged human beings seems like a rhetorical strategy. Afterall, if embryos are full-fledged human beings, then killing an embryo is no different than killing an infant or teenager, and just as wrong. But, not even the pro-life crowd believes that fertilized embryos are full-fledged human beings. All you have to do is consider the thought experiment of a burning building with six embryos in a petri dish and a toddler. You can only save one, which do you save? I’d bet 9 out of 10 pro-lifers will say the toddler. By making this choice, they are saying that embryos (all six of them) have a lower status than one toddler. So, why don’t pro-lifers believe that embryos have the same status as an infant? This shows us that the pro-life strategy of claiming that embryos have the same status as an infant is wrong – not even they believe it.

Yep. They’re either lying or at best self-deluded.

More evidence that they don’t mean what they say about fetuses being “human beings”:

So-called prolife families don’t have a funeral for a miscarriage. The prospective parents may grieve, even get together with friends to mourn their loss, but they don’t have a funeral. They know it wasn’t a baby, wasn’t a “full human being”.

So-called prolifers don’t fight against IVF. They don’t protest in front of fertility clinics. They don’t assassinate fertility doctors like they assassinate ob-gyns. Hardly any of them refuse IVF for themselves when they personally suffer from infertility. But this is in spite of knowing that the procedure almost always creates more viable embryos than can be implanted, and in spite of the fact that the very best IVF embryo selection still has less than 50% chance of implanting – while in more than 50% of the cases, the freshly created “full human being” simply dies at 6-8 cells. If they truly believed that all products of conception are “full human beings” this would be every bit as much an issue for them as surgical abortion.

So-called prolifers are all liars or fools who as a whole are more concerned with forcing women to suffer what they believe are justified consequences of any sexual contact than they are with saving what they claim are “innocent lives”.

hotshoe says:  November 15, 2012 at 4:39 am

Thanks for the helpful points, Esteleth!

Yet more proof that so-called prolifers don’t really believe what they claim to believe about “full human life” of every embryo:

When NYU Medical Center was evacuated during Sandy, the human patients were all evacuated. The lab animals were left to drown (and drown they did). The incubators and freezers containing cells? They lost power, which, in the overwhelming majority of cases, leads to death in a short order.

There are no protests at Con Ed’s NY offices or at the fertility clinic about how they murdered all those innocent unborn frozen babies when they let the power go out because they were too cheap to provide enough backup generators.

Not one person thinks a pile of frozen embryos is worth a second thought.

John B, choke on it!

Me, I’m outraged that the lab admins didn’t have a disaster plan for the truly innocent already-born lab animals. Given the reality of global climate change, they had better get their act in gear because this “once-in-a-lifetime” disaster is going to happen again. Sooner than we’d like.

Glad to hear the already-born humans all got out safely, though. I remember Katrina.

hotshoe says:  November 15, 2012 at 5:07 am

You know, it’s pretty upsetting to be having this “debate” when a wonderful woman has just been killed by anti-abortionism. Horrible people, exactly like John B, killed her when their immoral fetus worship caused them to choose it over her human life. If it weren’t for evil people just like John B, her heart would still be beating, she would stilll be alive, she would still be in the arms of her loving family, she would still have a mind, dreams, plans, memories, and a future.

The politics of pro-female-slavery Forced Birthers like John B kills already-born innocent humans.

Trina says:  November 15, 2012 at 10:32 am

I think ‘parasite’ is a pretty accurate word and not necessarily a pejorative one- however I realise its been taken as an attempt to dehumanise an embryo. I don’t feel the need to do that- I freely acknowledge that an embryo is a potential human life. Potential, not actual.

Ematters: an embryo doesn’t have any bodily autonomy. Until birth, it is 100% dependant on the mother. So your argument is a rather moot point. We’re not ignoring anyone’s bodily autonomy.

Pro-lifers really should just stand proud behind their anti women stance instead of trying to hide it behind a smokescreen of concern for people who don’t yet, and may never, exist.

MariaO says:  November 15, 2012 at 1:09 pm

All you “pro-lifers” that consider any potential life sacred and worth forcing considerable medical and mental risks on an unwilling woman:
I assume you are all regular blood-givers, that you have put yourselves on the bonemarrow and kidney transplant lists as willing to give up parts of your own bodies to save a human life? Because if you have not, this means that you are not yourselves willing to do the same that you would blithely force others to do. And that means that your view is not really about life, it is about controlling women.

WithinThisMind says: November 15, 2012 at 1:46 pm

For starters, innocent can no more be applied to a fetus than it can to a rock. It has no agency, therefore innocence and guilt are purely romantic notions in it’s regard.

Second, a woman has the right to defend herself against any human being attempting to use her body against her will. She may revoke her consent to the use of her body at any time. And she may enforce that revocation with anything up too and including lethal force.

There is no moral difference between telling a woman she has to submit to an unwanted pregnancy and telling a woman she has to submit to a rape.

WithinThisMind says:  November 15, 2012 at 6:35 pm

Like nearly every pro-abortion argument, you ignore the life of the unwanted human being destroyed via abortion.

Nope. We don’t. We just acknowledge that it, like every other human being out there, does not have the right to use a woman’s body against her will.

The sole biological reason for sex is procreation, so engaging in that activity is tacit acceptance of the responsibility to carry any human beings is creates to term.

So, in your mind, once a woman has agreed to go on a date with a man, she has no choice but to submit to sex because consent is something that is both implied and something that cannot be revoked.

Ultimately, you are just continuing to demonstrate that morally, you are no different than a rapist. The consent and feelings of the woman do not matter to you at all, as long as your desire is sated.

WithinThisMind says:  November 15, 2012 at 8:02 pm

Scientific fact: It is a “full on human being.”

Citation needed. Peer reviewed academic sources only, not the bullshit lies you’ve been citing thus far. Facts only.

And you are the one fighting gender-selection abortion restrictions. Why do you support the legality of killing females just because they are female?

Your ability to pull strawmen out of your ass is amazing. I think you’ve proven beyond a doubt my earlier assertion that you are just a troll.

Rutee Katreya says:  November 15, 2012 at 8:42 pm

What’s this shithead’s argument that makes it okay to force women to bear children, but we can’t strap him down and suck his blood out or take his redundant organs, again?

We treat corpses with more respect than pregnant women, in terms of bodily autonomy.

dianne says:  November 15, 2012 at 9:02 pm

abortion actually is a complicated issue

Only if you believe slavery is ever justified. Even if one concedes the extremely dubious point that a zygote from single cell stage on is a person worthy of human rights, the only way forced continuation of pregnancy can be justified is if you believe it’s ok to enslave people in certain circumstances. All anti-choice arguments come down to a claim that it’s ok to enslave women for the good of their fetuses.

Rutee Katreya says:  November 15, 2012 at 11:55 pm

They aren’t identical. Not tying is not action and killing an human bein is an action.

‘killing a human being’? Aborting a fetus isn’t that, it’s aborting a fetus.

As to action, so let’s say I tie you up and use you as a human dialysis machine for someone who will die without you. REmoving the tubes is an action; is that still wrong?

What if you’re hooked up to an actual child? Would removing that child’s lifeline from your body, that you never agreed to place there, be wrong?

I said I don’t accept ad hoc redefinitions.

I don’t accept shitty justifications that claim a fetus is supposed to be treated the same as a child to begin with, so call us even.

According to the Oxford diccionary definition they are childen.

I don’t give two measly fucks about Oxford, and never have.

Rutee Katreya says:  November 16, 2012 at 3:02 am

I don’t want further discussion which someone which insults me and avoids dialectic.

I didn’t avoid dialogue, I insulted you while we dialogued. Which you would have noticed, if you weren’t a fool; I gave substantive criticism of your jackassery.

Feel free to pick up any dialogue at my blog, SiftingReality.com, where we don’t call names and hurl obscenities at people we disagree with.

Oh, silly me, how dare I be angry at assholes like you two who think it’s okay to treat me as a baby oven!

Fuck your sanctimonious bullshit, both of you.

dianne says:  November 16, 2012 at 4:27 pm

Either it is okay to abort, or it is okay to rape.

Occasionally I shock people by saying that all anti-choice men are, on some level, rapists. Many never complete the act of rape personally*, but they are all of the rapist mentality. There’s no real difference between a man who will tell a woman that she doesn’t have the right to control how her uterus is used and one who will say that she doesn’t have the right to say how her vagina is used.

*Though, of course, if they vote for “pro-life” politicians, they are effectively participating in the sexual assault of numerous women.

Nepenthe says:  November 16, 2012 at 5:01 pm

@Sef

Ultimately this debate came down to whose view of morality is correct. That’s the argument you guys need to have.

I tried. No one stepped up. They said “conscience is so seared that you are immune to reason” and flounced off.

My hypothesis is that there’s no rational basis to the forced-birth ethical system and “it seems icky” sounds stupid when you say it out loud. But that’s just a hypothesis.

@John B

You have moral obligations to your children that you don’t have to others.

Why, exactly? Note that “just ‘cuz” is not a complete answer.

WithinThisMind says:  November 16, 2012 at 6:09 pm

Isu,

Either ALL humans must by default have the right to use a woman’s body however they see fit no matter what she feels about it

or

A woman has the right to decide what happens to her body and to defend her body with whatever degree of force necessary, including using lethal force if no other means of force is sufficient.

Which is it?

Either it’s okay to abort, or it’s okay to rape. Which is it?

Nepenthe says:  November 16, 2012 at 7:12 pm

*Most abortions in the US occur during the embryonic phase of development.

For the scientifically illiterate, the pre-rats that Isu declared to be children are embryos.

WithinThisMind says:  November 16, 2012 at 7:19 pm

Isu,

It doesn’t surprise me at all to see you supporting slavery. Since that is, after all, what the forced-birther side is about – enslaving women.

Regarding morality, I think if the woman, being her choice relevant, causes the situation (her child using her body) she has responsabilities and looses moral rights.

I see you are also one of those people who think if a woman goes on a date with a man and he rapes her, it was her own damn fault.

These are just a few examples I could have chosen from.  They were all pretty vile, not because they support abortion, but for how they ultimately view pregnancy and children in the womb.  Notice that an unwanted child in the womb is the equivalent to rape (because it is using the woman’s body against her will), and also that pro-life men are the equivalent of rapists.  I’m not really sure how someone comes to dehumanize a pre-birth child to the point where they view them as hostile parasites, but frankly, it’s sick.

For anyone who doesn’t know why comparing a fetal human to a parasite is inappropriate, THIS POST explains it.

Comments

  1. Wow. These people are insane.

    I’ve been having a debate abortion with a friend and, while we disagree on pretty much every single point, but it’s been a respectful, intellectual debate with a sane and rational person. These people seem to be neither sane, nor rational.

    • Kunoichi

      I hate to even say this, but I think they are disgusting. There is a certain evilness to someone who would speak that way about children in the womb. Their views are more than pro-choice, they are full on abortion advocates.

  2. ooh, look, more folks advocating rape and slavery, as well as copyright violation. Awesome.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: