the difference is sperm does not have its own unique DNA code as an unborn baby has. I’m still curious as to where the line is drawn as to who gets the basic right. The right to live. The left continues to claim folks have a right to all sorts of things that aren’t guaranteed anywhere, except for the basic right of life. Where is the line drawn? And could it possibly be drawn somewhere that isn’t just an arbitrary point that supports your argument, instead your argument supporting where the line is drawn?
That sign just makes me think someone is a complete idiot.
Sperm + egg = baby
Sperm by itself does NOT have it’s own unique DNA code. it’s simply sperm.
Good gracious.
fml i’m a cannibal. *cries forever*
@grim_truth - I think the right to your own body is just as important as the right to life. While everyone has the right to life in any stage of human development, nobody has the right to tell another person what their body must go through or that a woman must complete a pregnancy. Only the woman with a pregnancy can decide if she continues the pregnancy, no one else gets to demand that she force her body into giving birth. Does this screw the unborn child out of it’s right to life? Yes, it does. Is it sad? Yes, it is. Is it murder? Not if the mother chooses to end the pregnancy on her own accord.
Sperm does have it’s own unique DNA code. No, two sperm carry all the same genetic material. Sperm carries as much human potential as a zygote that has a good chance of not surviving as miscarriage is pretty common in early pregnancy when most abortions are performed.
Sperm = half of the DNA required to combine with an egg’s DNA to form a human chain (which still does not, immediately, form a human). They can identify a person based on the DNA in their sperm.
Avoid cannibalism; spit.
I’m having a serious case of deja vu here. Oh, wait. You just posted this on Facebook.
@amyunicorn - With spitting it wouldn’t be cannibalism, but then it would be murder!!!! OH NOES!!!
@TiredSoVeryTired - If the woman gets to arbitrarily decide to terminate a pregnancy, then you cannot possibly say that the right to life is as important as the right to your own body. At that point, the right to terminate the pregnancy has become more important than the right to live.
Sperm does not carry the same human potential as a zygote, as a sperm, alone, can never become a full fledged human being, whereas a zygote can.
Equating miscarriages to abortion is a false analogy. That would be like two folks playing ball, one hits the baseball, and it happens to hit a pitcher in the head, killing them. That is not murder. However, purposefully throwing the ball at an unsuspecting pitchers head is murder.
By simply stating that it’s early, and the child wouldn’t survive a miscarriage (nothing survives a miscarriage) is instilling an arbitrary point that fits one’s view, instead of allowing one’s view to form around a point determined by science.
And again, the abortion is not performed ON the woman, but inside, as the child has a DNA code unique from the mother’s.
Every cell in the human body has 46 chromosomes. 23 shared pair. Except for sperm and egg. They have just one of each of the 23 chromosomes. They do share the same genetic makeup as the father and mother. Now, within each chromosome, lays the DNA. The DNA becomes unique when the egg and sperm join, and begin to mulitply. This is when the new genectic make-up of the new person is formed.
hahaha i was expecting this photo to show up on your blog eventually =P The comment found on 9gag for this photo was hilarious =P
Although I do believe that abortion is murder =(
@grim_truth - Of course I can say the right to life is as important as the right to our own bodies. That includes a lot more than just the issue of pregnancy. Otherwise you are suggesting that being a slave (the right to your own body) is worse than being murdered. I don’t reckon that one is worse than another.
Only women can get pregnant, so it’s not like the entire population is out there usurping unborn children’s right to life. Pregnancy happens to the woman’s body, on the inside yes, but certainly if a person has the right to their own body they also have the right to what happens inside their body.
I don’t get why anyone thinks they have the right to tell a woman that she must be pregnant and give birth. Whatever rights are more important in the hierarchy of rights, nobody has the right to demand what happens inside another person’s body. (I’m also against male infant circumcision as I do believe the right to our own body is a basic human right.) The reason the abortion debate is so complex is because both sides are technically right… every human has the right to life and every human has the right to their own body.
Eventually it’ll be “acceptable” to kill our own children simply because they’re a hassle, they’re too expensive, they put a damper on our social lives… Your friend gets shot, they end up in a coma and you have an entire town rally together to fight for “justice” but a woman decides to have her baby killed inside of her and it all boils down to, “oh, but that’s her choice.” Yes, it is. Just like it’s the pedophile’s choice to take the innocence of a child, irregardless of what it’ll do to them in the future, or of how it may effect the family…right? It all boils down to choice. Everyone wants the “right” to do whatever they please without consequence and without anyone trying to make them feel guilt for it. Guiltless and immediate self-satisfaction. That should be our country’s motto. =/
Now that you mention it, I have what seems a viable solution: All of those church ladies who are so opposed to abortion that they would outlaw it should load up on their church lady buses and go on church lady missions, offering up free church lady blow jobs to all the horny young men who might otherwise impregnate women who’d seek abortions.
@TiredSoVeryTired - Once one right trumps another, they are no longer of the same importance. It’s just a matter of impossibility. And you are saying that a woman’s right to have an abortion trumps the child’s right to life. Therefore, they cannot possibly be of equal importance. Sorry, but they just can’t.
It’s not about telling a woman she must give birth. It’s about the unborn child’s right to life. Sorry, but the right to life trumps all other rights.
I honestly cannot comprehend how one can sit there and say “nobody has the right to demand what happens inside another person’s body” while on the exact same side of the token, be saying that it’s ok to kill an innocent human.
It’s not a complex issue.
You make it complex, by trumping the basic human right to life with the right to do commit what would otherwise be a crime within one’s body.
@grim_truth - One right does not always trump another. Not every pregnant woman will chose abortion. They are indeed of equal importance in the whole scheme of things.
Technically speaking, I reckon you can say that people do have the right to their own body over the right of others to live, or else we’d all be forced to give up one of our kidneys so that others may live. Or we’re forced into donating bone marrow so others may live. Heck our livers can regenerate, so at 18 we should all be forced into giving up a small part of our liver, so others may life. No where else are people forced to give up their bodily integrity for others to live. It is only okay to force women to go through pregnancy and birth so that others may live.
There are undoubtedly people who will die because you won’t give up part of your liver. And some unborn babies die because some women have decided not to put themselves through pregnancy, labor, and delivery. Women are not incubators for men, women are actual people who should be able to decide that they don’t want to be pregnant as much as anyone doesn’t have to give up part of their body so that others may live.
@TiredSoVeryTired - They cannot be of equal importance if in one single instant, one right trumps another. If they are of equal importance, than they can NEVER trump one another.
Forcing a woman to go through pregnancy is nothing similar to bone marrow donations. Not even close. First, if one doesn’t donate bone marrow, they aren’t purposefully and maliciously ending the life of another. There is a difference between not performing CPR, and holding someone under water. You are equating the two, and they are not even close.
If a woman does not want to be pregnant, then they should not have sex. If one is not ready for consequences, then they should not partake in the action. That would be similar to me stealing an airplane, taking off, and you saying it’s ok for me to crash it into a preschool because that’s the only way I can live because they have the bouncy house and I don’t know how to land the plane.
No, I must accept the consequences of the action without infringing upon the basic rights of others.
I wonder, do you feel it would be ok for someone to use their 2nd Amendment right to trump your right to free speech? Because that is what the argument for abortion equates to.
@grim_truth - personally, i draw the line at whether entity A is physically attached to entity B. if so, entity B should be able to determine how long that attachment should continue, if at all. i don’t think it’s arbitrary to say that the right to live is null and void if that life can only be supported by a single other person, with no option to relinquish that responsibility. unlike a child, a fetus cannot be handed off to someone else for care. if they invent a way to transplant feti from one womb to another (essentially, adoption before birth), THEN i’ll be against abortion.
is it unfortunate that the only way for a woman to control her body in this case is to kill the fetus? absolutely. but i’m not interested in turning women into walking incubators for nine months. you might be able to force a woman to carry a fetus to term, but that’s about all you can force. as a woman who’d have an abortion in a heartbeat, i wouldn’t do all of those wonderful things pregnant women are supposed to do (avoid alcohol and tobacco, see the doctor, get tests done, etc) for a pregnancy that i’d rather get rid of. chances are, i’d step up my bad habits in hopes that it would lead to a miscarriage. so unless pro-lifers also plan to legislate pregnant women’s behavior to make sure the fetus is properly cared for, i don’t see how they plan to make sure that those women they force to give birth actually do what they’re supposed to do.
“Eventually it’ll be “acceptable” to kill our own children simply because they’re a hassle, they’re too expensive, they put a damper on our social lives..” doubtful. children, as independent entities, can be given up. unlike a fetus, children don’t need to be cared for by their birth mothers.
@grim_truth - Life is full of times when rights are equal, but in some instances one right trumps another. My right to peace and quiet trumps your right to freedom of speech if you go yelling at the top of your lungs at 2 a.m. in my town. Such is not the case during the day.
It’s the same thing. People die all the time because we cannot force people to be marrow donors. Heck, people die all the time because there isn’t enough of their blood type on hand somewhere in the world. Dead is still dead whether from lack of action of your part to be on a marrow list or a woman chooses to abort a pregnancy. In both cases, people could do something.
Ready for sex or not. That’s not the damn issue. I knew you were all about punishing women for being sexual beings. Blah blah blah. Always the end result of the abortion debate… women shouldn’t be having sex. Silliness. Men shouldn’t be having sex if they don’t want women aborting babies. How’s that?
As far as I know the 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms, not to murder people. Maybe it says the “Right to bear arms and shoot your neighbor” but I don’t recall that. However, if I entered someone’s house and refused to leave and they didn’t want me there, they can use their 2nd amendment rights, go buy a gun and shoot my ass! Because then the right to their body/property trumps my right to live.
@flapper_femme_fatale - Understood. But is that what it’s about? That they just don’t want to have to walk around with “it” in their belly for the next 9-10 months? Why not carry it to term, deliver, and place it up for adoption then? They wouldn’t have to be responsible for the baby as soon as it’s born. That’s what I’m getting at. They don’t want the inconvenience of not being able to do this and that or having to explain themselves when someone asks about it, you know what I mean? It’s all just “too much” for them to handle.
@TiredSoVeryTired - Again, it’s impossible to be equal if one trumps another. Your right to peace and quiet is NOT equal to the right of free speech. Because free speech does not HAVE to consist of yelling at the top of my lungs at 2 a.m. The right of free speech can be exercised in other ways. The right of life can only be exercised in one way.
Someone dying of natural causes is not the same as having one’s skull cracked open and their brains sucked out. Or burnt to death in a chemical solution.
You are trying to say that one’s failure to jump in and save a drowning victim because of a fear of open water is the same as someone purposefully drowning someone. That is the exact analogy you are making. Sorry, it doesn’t hold water.
While in some states you may use your 2nd Amendment rights to stop an intruder, you cannot, anywhere in the United States, invite someone into your home just to shoot them dead. THAT is what abortion is.
@flapper_femme_fatale - There is already a movement to legalize infantcide based on convenience. It may be a weak movement, but so was the pro-choice movement decades ago.
Abortion is NOT the only way to control what happens inside the body. Again, that’s like inviting someone into your home, just to kill them. There are other methods. If one cannot accept the responsibility of the possible outcome of sex, then they are not ready for sex. If I cannot accept the responsibility of landing a plane, I have no damn business taking off with one.
@grim_truth - ”you cannot… invite someone into your home just to shoot them dead. THAT is what abortion is.” That is probably the best analogy I have seen about anything ever. Can I use that?
Sperm aren’t babies. What an idiot.
Pretty air tight case you have. If a woman thinks her life is endangered by an abortion she can often cross state lines and get an abortion where there is abortion clinic. The Pro life folks have to make more states anti abortion and eventually get a federal mandate to completely stop abortions.
What kind of penalty will stop making people use the abortion method? Ten years?, Twenty years? The penalty phase has yet been determined, so far we are only talking about criminalizing abortion.
@TiredSoVeryTired - Didn’t you not too long ago do a blog telling everyone to shut up and quit arguing about abortion? And yet here you are, arguing it again. Have you changed your mind on that?
@musterion99 - No, lol, I’m pretty sure I said for everyone to shut up about telling a woman what she must do with her body. But since I write on the fly, I reckon I might have said to shut up about the whole abortion argument.
@MommaFish89 - I have three kids and I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to go through a pregnancy. But from everyone person I’ve known to have had an abortion, they all have had many, many reasons for having one. A considerable number of them did go on to have children later in their life and some have not and would not have children.
@grim_truth - Again, some rights trump others at different times. Someone is allowed to yell at the top of their lungs in the middle of the day even if it disturbs my peace.
Most abortions do not result in anyone’s head being cracked open or being burned with chemical solutions. In fact, I am against late term abortions when those types of things happen. Early pregnancies are usually, but not always done, with D&C or D&E. I think D&E is more humane.
Just because a woman is pregnant doesn’t mean she allowed anyone to enter her at all, either the embryo or the man. Hell, my third child is here despite the fact that it was way passed my fertile period and I still don’t know how I got pregnant with him! I wasn’t trying to get pregnant, but I’m sure you are not suggesting I can’t have sex as a then married woman with my own husband just because I didn’t want to get pregnant? Dang, even the Catholic Church allows that.
“That they just don’t want to have to walk around with “it” in their belly for the next 9-10 months? Why not carry it to term, deliver, and place it up for adoption then? They wouldn’t have to be responsible for the baby as soon as it’s born.” that doesn’t change the reality that they’re responsible for the fetus for nine months. i can’t speak for all women, but to me that’s a crazy long time to have to deal with a responsibility you don’t want and can’t get rid of. “They don’t want the inconvenience of not being able to do this and that or having to explain themselves when someone asks about it, you know what I mean? It’s all just “too much” for them to handle.” so how is that any different from parents with toddlers wanting to give up their children? what’s wrong with forcing them to continue being parents? as someone who would have an abortion, i see pregnancy as far more than an inconvenience. i’m uninsured, so i wouldn’t be able to afford anything medical. i don’t even make enough to support myself medically, and my mother and father have been very explicit about cutting off any support if i get knocked up. and in my family, unwanted pregnancies don’t happen without being disowned. simply put, i’d sooner kill myself than become a mother against my will.
@flapper_femme_fatale - Okay, so don’t do things that could land you getting pregnant. Ohhh, wait. That would mean sacrificing something that we want to do when it’d just be so much easier to just kill the consequence right? And there’s nothing wrong with a mother or parents giving their children up for adoption but the baby has to be born in order for that to happen. But it’s just easier to have an abortion and be done with it. No one has to know, right? Not the parents, not even the dad. No one. Abortion doesn’t make you “un”pregnant, it just makes you the mother of a dead baby.
“There is already a movement to legalize infantcide based on convenience. “ and i wouldn’t support it. an infant can be removed from an unwilling parent without causing harm to the infant. what’s your point? slippery slope? “Again, that’s like inviting someone into your home, just to kill them… If one cannot accept the responsibility of the possible outcome of sex, then they are not ready for sex.” it’s your opinion that abortion is an irresponsible act, and it’s not one that i share. personally, i find women who bring babies to term and become horrible mothers to be far more irresponsible. i also find it irresponsible for pro-lifers to want funding for contraceptives and welfare programs that benefit single mothers to be cut. apparently, conservatives only care about poor, unwanted children while they’re still in the uterus.
“Abortion doesn’t make you “un”pregnant, it just makes you the mother of a dead baby.” *shrug* however you want to label it, that’s your choice. personally, i care more about women than feti. “But it’s just easier to have an abortion and be done with it. “ do you even know anyone who’s had an abortion? it’s never an easy choice to make. my mother had one, long before i came along. it was definitely something she struggled with. but in the end, i think she made the best choice for herself. and anyone who wants to call her irresponsible, lazy, or a murderer is not worthy of my respect.
Killing a viable fetus is murder. Killing an embryo is murder. Capital punishment is murder. All involve intentional ending of life.
@my0615 - A fetus is a collection of cells that just happens to have enough DNA strands to *eventually* and *potentially* develop into a baby.
You look rather young. I think you’re oversimplifying this a lot. You sound very “wham, bam, thank you ma’am. This is what it is – it’s black or white – there’s ZERO gray areas.” Issues are seldom that simple, especially issues involving several entities and life or death. Just my two cents.
Btw …. I wouldn’t her canabalizing me
@grim_truth - Actually…When you invite someone into your home, you planned for them to come or don’t mind them coming. If I opened the door and someone waltzed in on accident or because it was 1am and I’m not thinking right, you bet damn well I will shoot them.
Abortion is a fairly nice process compared to what other animals do. When they aren’t ready for the outcome, they just up and leave their babies to starve. I’m 100% pro choice. I believe that if you’re 90 years old and your quality of life has dwindled, you should be able to apply for euthanasia. I believe if you don’t want a baby prior to it being born, go ahead and not have it. I’m sure the kids in foster care that have aged out and are on the streets could vouch for how awesome foster care is.
@my0615 - hamburger = murder, carrots = murder, all natural coloring (especially red coloring) = murder, not adopting from the animal shelter = murder, flyswatter = murder, paper = murder, just about everything = MURDER.
@plursheep - All good points. We can’t debate opinions or moral beliefs.
@grim_truth - “It’s not about telling a woman she must give birth. It’s about the unborn child’s right to life. Sorry, but the right to life trumps all other rights.”
Says who? You are just arguing from the assumption that your hierarchy of rights is the absolute standard everyone else adopts/should adopts. It’s not. The value of rights is entirely subjective. Furthermore, I hate to break it to you, but your arguments for your views are not terribly convincing.
Anyways, your entire premise falls apart when somebody simply asserts “the right of human beings trumps the right of any non-viable fetus.” This is also the position that is supported by federal law (e.g., Casey, Roe, etc.) Forcefully asserting your views are correct doesn’t make them correct, or even reasonable.
@grim_truth - I am just curious, what is your desired legal policy, specifically? Some questions:
First, would you make all abortions illegal? If not, what is the cutoff point?
Second, how do you propose we care for all the new children brought into the world? Outlawing abortion to any significant degree would result in millions of new children being born annually. Adoption agencies and orphanages are already horribly over-stressed. How do you propose we take care of these children? Are the parents required to care for children they want to abort? Are tax payers supposed to pay for the enormous new orphanages, schools, hospitals, etc. that will be required to care for these children? These are issues that should be addressed way before we restrict abortion.
Third, what is the legal basis for this unparalleled governmental interference with bodily integrity? I mean, if you have no legal basis for changing law that has been in effect for 30 years or more, this is all meaningless moral outrage.
@my0615 - Allowing a woman to die is also murder by your logic. Does being pregnant mean a woman forfeits ALL right to her own life?
Not at all, It is a personal decision.
There is direct murder and there is indirect murder….to make people feel guilty the Pro Life folks want to charge people who are involved with abortion as murderers. America wants to wage war and indirectly Americans are murderers?
No where does anyone suggest that the Buddhists have it right, that people are reincarnated into babies. Who knows what kind of soul enters into a baby but some of the arguments border on the belief that a special, unique soul is in a baby about to be born. At what point is this unique soul so special? Can’t that unique soul migrate to the next available spot? All those folks who claim that abortion is murder should be forced to vocalize what sort of punishment should be placed on those guilty. If not then their cries that abortion is murder has a hollow ring to it, basically abortion murder is not that big of a crime.
@grim_truth - “It’s not about telling a woman she must give birth. It’s about the unborn child’s right to life. Sorry, but the right to life trumps all other rights.”
Wanting abortion taken out of the equation, considering that this line of thinking (by your standards) is the only right way of thinking, forces this opinion on women thereby telling the woman she must give birth. All ideas about when life begins and the sanctity of life aside, How is it NOT about telling the woman she must give birth?
First, Sperms aren’t babies and neither are eggs, each individually cannot make a fetus
@grim_truth - I just want to know why abortion is acceptable but in a case where a pregnant woman is killed, they charge the murdered with two murders instead one one, apparently claiming the mother had intent to give birth. It just doesn’t seem right. You cant claim it isn’t a human being and then also claim it is not.
May as well add my two cents in, here. I believe that the pro-life position, as I find to so often be the case with the ‘conservative’ side of most arguments, is a maintained impulse emotional reaction, followed by selective reasoning aimed at rationalizing it.
The issue requires us to stop, ask questions, and think. What defines us as people, and what is our reason for protecting human life? Do we protect it because it has human DNA? If so, then I pose an admittedly outlandish, but nonetheless relevant hypothetical: If you one day discovered a cow, or a pig, or a chicken that acted like a human…a talking animal with humanlike emotions and personality, is it okay to kill it and eat it, or do you believe its life should be protected? I do hope most would answer that it should. And then clearly, the decision to protect a life lies in something other than its DNA. What if we discover life on another planet, much like life on Earth, some “intelligent” and some not? Do we show no regard for that distinction, and decree that any or all of that life can be slaughtered, simply because it does not have human DNA? No? Then the decision to protect a life lies in something other than its DNA.
I addressed abortion in an entry some time ago, in something similar to the second hypothetical, in a world of my own imagination, where the issue of abortion was handled by defining “sentience levels” based on various attributes of life forms that made a lot more sense as criteria for the need to protect those life forms than DNA. Just a basic guideline, but I think it got the point across. Things like, can it feel pain? And what capacity does it have, at its best, for thought, personality, emotion, etc.
A fetus is not a human being. A fetus is not a baby. A zygote is not a fetus, or a human being, or a baby. People equate a zygote or a fetus to a baby because they’re feeling, not thinking. And that’s fine, for them. Nobody’s going to force them to have an abortion. But objectively speaking, it is not the same as a baby, and it is not the same as a human being. And aborting it is not the same as killing a baby, or a human being.
@MommaFish89 - Having an abortion doesn’t make you the mother of a dead baby any more than having a miscarriage at six weeks makes you the mother of a dead baby. Why be so harsh? I have three children. I didn’t become a mother until my daughter was born alive and then I took care of her.
@galadrial - Apparently women shouldn’t have sex unless they intent to get pregnant and have babies for men! So, of course women forfeit their bodies and lives to do the bidding of men.
@Doubledb - Abortion is legal because women have the right to privacy. No where does Roe v. Wade suggest a third party should assault a mother and be able to kill her unborn child. That’s crazy! Only a women herself can decide she doesn’t want to be pregnant, someone else can’t decide that for her. There’s no doubt that abortion ends a life. Just to be against legalized abortion are you really okay with someone like Scott Peterson not getting the death penalty for killing two people? In CA, if you kill one person you can’t get the death penalty, you need a multiple murder. So, let people who assault a mother, cause her unborn child to die, just to be an ass about legalized abortion? I don’t think so.
@grim_truth - “the difference is sperm does not have its own unique DNA code as an unborn baby has. ” (while i think you are wrong about that, i can’t refute it)
so here is a mind-blowing but relevant question, is information conscious? if not, it is irrelevant if the zygote has complete DNA and is in the process of becoming a infant. if it is, then there is a whole new conceptualization to explore. again if information isn’t conscious then killing a zygote which isn’t able to consciously build up prejudice or cause other civil instability- is as socially relevant as removing any other tumor. in all honesty, one must realize the ‘the right to live’ isn’t a right but a socially enacted entitlement; it objectively is an expression of human-centric bias towards self preservation through group preservation. because it is a bequeathed entitlement rather than a fair assumption, you can’t use it when you start off. murder similarly is based on human perception which causes it to flux/bend under ideological discretion, but again no one is objectively entitled to live. it merely is considered distasteful and inflammatory to kill ‘just because’ in secular world-views. there are cultures which hold no such bias, like latin america, where life is often seen to have no value. murder isn’t to kill another human, but to kill another ‘person’. and so the fundamental question you have to be able to defend is what makes a person. for me a person must be fairly articulate and mature. for others children can be people. for others still, the slider indicates personhood starts at conception because of some immeasurable belief in souls. it is all about the perception of circumstance, and depending on the assumptions different claims come out, you are literally plugging in different values into the function. mine is semi-objective as it deals with qualitative data as opposed to entitlements but in earnest if the person thinks that they were that zygote and can empathize with it no reason will dissuade their feeling. same with mothers who are pro-life because the child is a person, but treat the infant and child as personal property later on. their feelings will trump their, and our, reason.
@lenybobsyouruncle - if information isn’t conscious, then it opens the door to other forms of killing those incapable of consciousness. Those in a coma for example.
If no one is entitled to live, then no one is entitled to anything, thus making all laws invalid. We cannot be a humane nor even nurturous society with zero laws or rights.
As you even admitted, you are also using arbitrary milestones and criteria to define personhood, or even human. Every human is indeed a person. By defining otherwise, one again merely assigns arbitrary criteria. At that point, any arbitrary criteria can be used for all forms of murder. Just as you stated “articulate and mature.” That would be a basis to have 90% of Xanga knocked off.
@Saridactyl - telling a woman she MUST give birth would also require fertilization against her will. Your argument then MUST also be fully 100% anti-welfare, as it is everyone’s body being used to support those on welfare. It’s their body doing the work that makes the money that is taxed. Are you also against welfare? If not, your argument holds no water.
@UTRow1 - When speaking of newborns, adoption agencies are stresed because not of the number of babies, but the number of families wanting to adopt and the lack of children, thus the up to 2 year wait I mentioned in my other comment. Again, if you are using the “body integrity” argument, then you must also be 100% against welfare for your argument to hold water. If not, then you contradict yourself and are merely applying arbitrary criteria to suit your view, instead of allowing your view to match the criteria set before.
My view is abortion is murder. It is a human life. When we assign other criteria to human life, it then also allows the killing of humans outside the womb. I believe the answer doesn’t necessarily lay within the law, but rather responsibility. If one cannot accept the responsibility of the possibility of a child, then they are not ready for sex. Just as if I cannot accept the responsibility of landing an airplane, I am not ready to take-off.
Admittedly, I am an odd one. My views and beliefs do not necessarily make up what I believe should be law. (I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I do not believe it should be outlawed, for example.) However, based on the only criteria that can honestly be used to define human life, organism is living (no one argues that a fetus, or zygote is not alive, just that it’s human or a person), and it has human DNA, and it’s own unique DNA, it is therefore a person, deserving of the basic right of life. That is what I believe should be the criteria. This does lead to one of those “chicken before the egg” questions, however. Would birth rates go down if folks know they would have to give birth should they become pregnant? Yes or no, neither side can give an honest answer, as we don’t know. Saying either way would be disnhonest. Which does mean that we would indeed have to figure out what to do if pregnancy rates were to stay the same and all would-be abortions were to still happen and now become born infants. Yes, we would have to prepare to take care of all those children. But that’s based on assuming every would-be abortion would wind up in the mother giving up the child, and still getting pregnant to begin with.
Law does not necessarily make any view reasonable, either. Remember, your donkey can’t sleep in your bathtub.
If the right of life does not trump all other rights, then anyone, at any time, may be killed for any reason. By arbitrarily creating criteria to allow abortion, then your argument holds even less water than mine.
@plursheep - Actually, I’ve known quite a few individuals who have aged through the foster care system, and not a single one would rather be dead.
Just because you wouldn’t support it doesn’t make it an immoral view in regards to infantcide. At that point, what makes your views any more valid than those who support that movement? Why are children who have been born more deserving of the right of life?
By bringing welfare into the argument, you have also shown your argument is totally invalid. If it’s about the woman’s right to her body, then it is anyone’s right to their body, making welfare just as wrong as making a woman carry a child to term.
Not trying to be rude with it, but based on the last two statements, it really does appear you made your decision to support abortion rights, then formulate the argument around it, instead of looking at the arguments to form your views. I know I will not change your mind (though admittedly, I do still hope). I just think we need to really stop and think and figure out at what point does someone become deserving of that right? It seems all reasonable people (yeah, there are some out there who are obviously not reasonable on both sides) seem to merely disagree WHEN the right of life begins for an individual.
@tendollar4ways - That only works if my argument is based on Bible references. It’s not.
@TiredSoVeryTired - But you’re not talking about absolute rights. My right to yell during the day is not absolute. Even during the day, it can be considered disturbing the peace. Even if I am ordered to be quiet, it does not extinguish my right to free speech, as I can express my views in other ways. Therefore, your right to peace does NOT trump my right to free speech. Now, if you right to peace silenced me to the point where I could not even write in the privacy of my own home, then yes, your right to peace would then trump my right to free speech. But it doesn’t. Thus, rights of equal importance do NOT ever trump each other.
Me putting someone to sleep with ether before killing them is more human than hacking them apart while they are fully conscious. Doesn’t make it ok.
A woman can become pregnant at ANY time. None of my children were planned either. No one is saying “don’t have sex unless you want a child.” Just take the proper precautions and be prepared for the consequences should it happen. When we get behind the wheel of a car, none of us are planning on having an accident. However, if we do, we deal with the ramifications of it: possibility of being sued, higher rates, our car destroyed, the injury of us or someone else. The abortion argument seems to equate to not having to take responsibility if we were to run into someone else. “Hey, I didn’t plan on it, and it’s my body that makes my money, and you can’t have it to pay for the damages and medical costs.”
@grim_truth - It’s actually quite simple; it’s in the constitution.
Amendment XIV Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
We would have to change the constitution to those “conceived” in the States, which could open up a whole host of problems.
Although I do think the sign is foolish because sperm+egg=fetus/zygote whatever, not just sperm.
If people did actually eat unborn fetuses that would be pretty gross. (And probably if you look hard enough you’ll find some remote tribe that did so.)
@theasianwithnoname - So does that then mean we can kill illegal immigrants? See, what it states is that persons born in the US shall have all priviledges and immunities, and that no law can override those. Life if not a priviledge strictly unique to the US. When we get to the next part is when it gets interesting:
“nor shall any state deprive any person of life…”
The constitution is not defining “person” there, otherwise we could kill illegal immigrants, or anyone who is not a citizen. In the first section it is more defining citizen, in the second part, no one can be denied life, liberty, or property. But it does not define what is a person.
I like that. Although it might reach more of the “non-choir” if it specified abortion to fetuses less than 3 months old. One problems with the schism over abortion is that the same word is used by both wides but each side has their extreme of what it means. The anti abortion people’s major problem is they treat the abortion of newly fertilized egg that same as an abortion of an eight month old preganancy. We have to get them to realize that the two extremes are not the same and we can do that by not confusing the word to mean the same.
@TiredSoVeryTired - What??? most of your comment doesnt make any sense. I never said anything about saying he should get away with anything, what I am suggesting is consistancy in the laws. I dont think the law should be able to say abortion is legal, as the fetus is not yet a human being; but then also in a case of a pregnant woman being murdered then say the fetus is a human being and the man gets charged twice, instead of only once. In reality, I dont think anyone should be getting killed; the pregnant woman, her baby, or the other babies being aborted each day. however, if the man is charged for a double murder, as he should be in my opinion, then abortion should also be considered murder/against the law (the only exception being the life or death of the mother, then I think the mother has the right to choose).
the fact that you find this photo to be enlightening or witty for your cause demonstrates your lack of intelligence.
Sperm + egg = 100% human DNA. It’s the very beginning of our lives. Are you saying that one second before birth it’s not a baby?
@TiredSoVeryTired - nobody has the right to tell another person what their body must go through or that a woman must complete a pregnancy
As a man I would think that a woman would and SHOULD get extremely upset when a man tells a woman what to do with there body. Especially since a man has no idea what a woman goes through with these situations. It is extremely easy and shallow for us (men) to judge…..
@Doubledb - The two cases are irrelevant. When someone kills a pregnant woman and both her and her unborn child dies, that’s two murders. Under current law, abortion is not murder and is no way related to crimes of violence against women. They are two very separate issues and have very little to do each other. Abortion is about a woman’s right to her own body and her own privacy, it is not about a woman’s right to kill/murder/whatever her own offspring. If that was the case, infanticide would be legal. It’s like saying since I can drive under the influence of Tylenol, I should also be able to drive under the influence of all drugs.
@LadyboyRevolution - Yes. Exactly! It’s very easy to sit back and declare that a woman MUST do something that only women CAN do. It’s quite another to be the woman being told by a man… you must stay pregnant because another life is more important than what you want your own body to go through. If that were the case, that people’s lives were more important than bodily integrity, the government would institute forced bone marrow donations, after all people die without a known match.
I guess I’m never doing neither… well ok, ok… maybe I’ll choose one over the other.
@grim_truth - If a woman gets pregnant and has an abortion, I think she is taking responsibility for her actions. She is doing what she feels is best in her situation. Have you ever witnessed the pregnancy of someone who doesn’t take REAL responsibility? I have and it sure as hell is a lot nastier than an early abortion is. Because you decide that getting pregnant must equal birth, does not mean you have the right to demand it of women.
Why do so many people leap to the “sperm does not have its own unique DNA code” response? First of all it is false – each sperm obviously has its own unique DNA code. What’s true is that it does not contain the COMPLETE DNA for forming a person. But so what? The point is that a sperm cell carries the potential (under the right conditions) to develop into a living, breathing, thinking, feeling, human being – and that sort of potentiality is exactly what many people appeal to when they argue that killing a zygote is the moral equivalent of murder. The “sperm doesn’t have its own DNA code” response utterly fails to address that point.
“Why are children who have been born more deserving of the right of life? “ because they are physically independent human beings who aren’t attached to a single other human being. “By bringing welfare into the argument, you have also shown your argument is totally invalid. “ i’m simply responding to your opinion that abortion is irresponsible. i think that demanding women to have babies against their wills and then cutting off all support is equally irresponsible, of not more so. i don’t see how i’m bringing it into the argument… you brought up irresponsibility first. “I just think we need to really stop and think and figure out at what point does someone become deserving of that right?” for me, it’s when a human becomes physically independent. as i’ve said millions of times, i’ll become pro-life when a fetus can be removed from the womb at any point in its gestation and still thrive. i support an individual’s right to relinquish parental responsibility at any point, without penalty or judgment. and i think that supersedes a fetus’ right to live, especially if the responsibility of care for that fetus cannot be transferred.
@MommaFish89 - So your response is to judge people for getting an abortion, while simultaneously judge and chastise people for being pregnant. Makes perfect sense.
@grim_truth - and on a side note, i’d leave comments on your own blog post on the topic. but, i’m still blocked. all i want to say is that the notion of it being “only nine months” is utter bullshit. every pregnancy i’ve had personal experience with was horrible for the mothers in different ways… and that was when the pregnancies were WANTED. so yes, i do think it’s asking too much of a woman to be pregnant. anyone acting like it’s no big deal is either ignorant of the suffering of others, or a man.
[When speaking of newborns, adoption agencies are stresed because not of the number of babies, but the number of families wanting to adopt and the lack of children, thus the up to 2 year wait I mentioned in my other comment.]
Even assuming this is correct (it’s not), you aren’t addressing my question. My question was: how do you plan to take care of the hundreds of thousands of unwanted children that would be born annually as a result of restricting the availability of abortions? Obviously, even if American orphanage infrastructure were currently adequate (it’s not), it obviously wouldn’t be adequate for ten fold increases in unwanted children every year, right? You can’t possibly believe that people would magically begin exercising unparalleled sexual restraint as a result of abortion restrictions, right? I mean, there’s just no evidence to support that view, particularly when the population is growing, and the number of abortions is increasing.
[Again, if you are using the "body integrity" argument, then you must also be 100% against welfare for your argument to hold water. If not, then you contradict yourself and are merely applying arbitrary criteria to suit your view, instead of allowing your view to match the criteria set before.]
Well, no. The two ideas are completely distinguishable. Believing that a woman should have the ability to control her own body is unrelated to whether or not the government provides social services to the poor. The current legal regimes, funding, rationales, etc. for these two issues are entirely distinct and unrelated. For instance, one idea is based, in part, on personal privacy (at least in constitutional law) and empirical health care data showing that, before the formal legalization of abortion, women’s health was adversely affected by puritanical laws. The other, welfare, is based on political/moral philosophies and different variants of the idea of the social contract. There’s absolutely nothing contradictory about adopting these two positions unless you conflate the two in a strange, incoherent way. The later part of this argument is just strange. As I mentioned in my previous comment, you don’t get to set the “criteria” for making these decisions. You can have your personal opinion about what should be considered, but you really don’t have any compelling explanation as to why your criteria are superior to other people’s criteria.
[My view is abortion is murder. It is a human life. When we assign other criteria to human life, it then also allows the killing of humans outside the womb. I believe the answer doesn't necessarily lay within the law, but rather responsibility. If one cannot accept the responsibility of the possibility of a child, then they are not ready for sex. Just as if I cannot accept the responsibility of landing an airplane, I am not ready to take-off.]
Right. I understand you feel strongly about these issues. But what I asked you to do was explain how your personal feelings on the matter can be translated into a real world policy that will not bankrupt the country or cause a significant harm to the mental and physical health of women throughout the country. In other words, I am asking you to show why the pro-life position is “responsible” when it has 0 answers to basic questions, like “when is abortion legal” and “how do you plan to pay for all these unwanted children?” Implementing any sort of pro-life policy until there are answers for these questions is, basically, the least humane, most irresponsible position a person can advocate for. You can’t hurting unthinking, unfeeling organic matter with these positions, you are hurting fully cognizant human beings and subjecting them to a rather tragic life.
The truth of the matter is that abortion is not a new issue. It has been a hot political topic for a long time. But pro-life people have never been able to answer these questions. This is not by coincidence. This is because pro-life policies are not viable in the real world. There is a reason why no first world countries have stringent abortion restrictions.
[However, based on the only criteria that can honestly be used to define human life, organism is living (no one argues that a fetus, or zygote is not alive, just that it's human or a person), and it has human DNA, and it's own unique DNA, it is therefore a person, deserving of the basic right of life.]
You can define life as you want, but pretending your definition is the only “honest” one is pretty insulting and ignorant, particularly when virtually all biologists, neurologists, and health care professionals disagree with your assessment, and the current state of the law does not support your view of human personhood. For instance, there are well defined legal person hood requirements that a fetus lack, such as cognizance. Excluding those requirements is arbitrary. Including them is demonstrably less arbitrary. Every human, even comatose and mentally retarded humans, posses a level of cognizance that fetuses/zygotes lack.
Ultimately, pretending that there aren’t differences between zygotes/fetuses and birthed humans is simply a waste of time. We all know, even you, that a fetus does not equal a human being. It’s also a legal fact that fetuses are not treated as persons under the law (they do not receive the same legal protections in constitutional law, federal law, or state law). Trying to equate the two has never been a convincing argument, and it will never be a convincing argument.
So what you need to do is take a step back and explain why a fetus, which is demonstrably not a person in many significant ways, deserves to be treated as a human under the law. The only way you can ever restrict abortion is through the law, so if you ever want pro-life policies enacted you have to be prepared to answer this question.
[That is what I believe should be the criteria. This does lead to one of those "chicken before the egg" questions, however. Would birth rates go down if folks know they would have to give birth should they become pregnant? Yes or no, neither side can give an honest answer, as we don't know. Saying either way would be disnhonest. Which does mean that we would indeed have to figure out what to do if pregnancy rates were to stay the same and all would-be abortions were to still happen and now become born infants. Yes, we would have to prepare to take care of all those children. But that's based on assuming every would-be abortion would wind up in the mother giving up the child, and still getting pregnant to begin with.]
There is 0 evidence that imposing abortion restrictions would decrease birth rates or the rates of unprotected sex. There is little to no reason to suppose that people would magically become personally responsible about sexuality in the face of overwhelming historical evidence to the country (i.e., earlier societies didn’t abstain from sex for fear of pregnancy).
Regardless, don’t you think you should have answers to these kinds of questions before promoting these positions given the tremendous gravity they would have on the personal and economic lives of virtually every American? Wouldn’t that be the responsible thing to do?
[Law does not necessarily make any view reasonable, either. Remember, your donkey can't sleep in your bathtub.]
No, but if the law isn’t on your side, you should be able to explain why it is wrong, and how it should be changed. Right? Otherwise you are putting the cart before the horse, and you likely haven’t thought through some of the implications of your position (e.g., pro-life positions are not viable in the real world for economic reasons).
[I[f the right of life does not trump all other rights, then anyone, at any time, may be killed for any reason. By arbitrarily creating criteria to allow abortion, then your argument holds even less water than mine.]
This is just nonsensical. What makes you think that there cannot be co-equal rights? Similarly, we don’t live in a society with a right to life “superior to all others,” right? We execute prisoners every week. We send our soldiers off to die and penalize them if they decide they want to desert the military. Yet people can’t go about killing each other for “any reason.” So, the right to life isn’t absolute in this country for legal persons. It also certainly isn’t for unborn fetuses and zygotes prior to the point of viability, as they can and are aborted.
Moreover, neither you nor any pro-life proponent, in the history of modern America, has adequately explained why a fetus deserves the same right to life as a legal person, or why a fetus’ “life” is equivalent to a person’s “life.” Declaring that the right to life is absolute and that fetuses have this right is a simple rationale, but it’s not really sensible, and it’s certainly not supported in the law.
Comments (76)
tits
the difference is sperm does not have its own unique DNA code as an unborn baby has. I’m still curious as to where the line is drawn as to who gets the basic right. The right to live. The left continues to claim folks have a right to all sorts of things that aren’t guaranteed anywhere, except for the basic right of life. Where is the line drawn? And could it possibly be drawn somewhere that isn’t just an arbitrary point that supports your argument, instead your argument supporting where the line is drawn?
@ShimmerBodyCream - Where?
That sign just makes me think someone is a complete idiot.
Sperm + egg = baby
Sperm by itself does NOT have it’s own unique DNA code. it’s simply sperm.
Good gracious.
fml i’m a cannibal. *cries forever*
@grim_truth - I think the right to your own body is just as important as the right to life. While everyone has the right to life in any stage of human development, nobody has the right to tell another person what their body must go through or that a woman must complete a pregnancy. Only the woman with a pregnancy can decide if she continues the pregnancy, no one else gets to demand that she force her body into giving birth. Does this screw the unborn child out of it’s right to life? Yes, it does. Is it sad? Yes, it is. Is it murder? Not if the mother chooses to end the pregnancy on her own accord.
Sperm does have it’s own unique DNA code. No, two sperm carry all the same genetic material. Sperm carries as much human potential as a zygote that has a good chance of not surviving as miscarriage is pretty common in early pregnancy when most abortions are performed.
Sperm = half of the DNA required to combine with an egg’s DNA to form a human chain (which still does not, immediately, form a human). They can identify a person based on the DNA in their sperm.
Avoid cannibalism; spit.
I’m having a serious case of deja vu here. Oh, wait. You just posted this on Facebook.
@amyunicorn - With spitting it wouldn’t be cannibalism, but then it would be murder!!!! OH NOES!!!
@TiredSoVeryTired - If the woman gets to arbitrarily decide to terminate a pregnancy, then you cannot possibly say that the right to life is as important as the right to your own body. At that point, the right to terminate the pregnancy has become more important than the right to live.
Sperm does not carry the same human potential as a zygote, as a sperm, alone, can never become a full fledged human being, whereas a zygote can.
Equating miscarriages to abortion is a false analogy. That would be like two folks playing ball, one hits the baseball, and it happens to hit a pitcher in the head, killing them. That is not murder. However, purposefully throwing the ball at an unsuspecting pitchers head is murder.
By simply stating that it’s early, and the child wouldn’t survive a miscarriage (nothing survives a miscarriage) is instilling an arbitrary point that fits one’s view, instead of allowing one’s view to form around a point determined by science.
And again, the abortion is not performed ON the woman, but inside, as the child has a DNA code unique from the mother’s.
Every cell in the human body has 46 chromosomes. 23 shared pair. Except for sperm and egg. They have just one of each of the 23 chromosomes. They do share the same genetic makeup as the father and mother. Now, within each chromosome, lays the DNA. The DNA becomes unique when the egg and sperm join, and begin to mulitply. This is when the new genectic make-up of the new person is formed.
hahaha i was expecting this photo to show up on your blog eventually =P The comment found on 9gag for this photo was hilarious =P
Although I do believe that abortion is murder =(
@grim_truth - Of course I can say the right to life is as important as the right to our own bodies. That includes a lot more than just the issue of pregnancy. Otherwise you are suggesting that being a slave (the right to your own body) is worse than being murdered. I don’t reckon that one is worse than another.
Only women can get pregnant, so it’s not like the entire population is out there usurping unborn children’s right to life. Pregnancy happens to the woman’s body, on the inside yes, but certainly if a person has the right to their own body they also have the right to what happens inside their body.
I don’t get why anyone thinks they have the right to tell a woman that she must be pregnant and give birth. Whatever rights are more important in the hierarchy of rights, nobody has the right to demand what happens inside another person’s body. (I’m also against male infant circumcision as I do believe the right to our own body is a basic human right.) The reason the abortion debate is so complex is because both sides are technically right… every human has the right to life and every human has the right to their own body.
Eventually it’ll be “acceptable” to kill our own children simply because they’re a hassle, they’re too expensive, they put a damper on our social lives… Your friend gets shot, they end up in a coma and you have an entire town rally together to fight for “justice” but a woman decides to have her baby killed inside of her and it all boils down to, “oh, but that’s her choice.” Yes, it is. Just like it’s the pedophile’s choice to take the innocence of a child, irregardless of what it’ll do to them in the future, or of how it may effect the family…right? It all boils down to choice. Everyone wants the “right” to do whatever they please without consequence and without anyone trying to make them feel guilt for it. Guiltless and immediate self-satisfaction. That should be our country’s motto. =/
Now that you mention it, I have what seems a viable solution: All of those church ladies who are so opposed to abortion that they would outlaw it should load up on their church lady buses and go on church lady missions, offering up free church lady blow jobs to all the horny young men who might otherwise impregnate women who’d seek abortions.
@TiredSoVeryTired - Once one right trumps another, they are no longer of the same importance. It’s just a matter of impossibility. And you are saying that a woman’s right to have an abortion trumps the child’s right to life. Therefore, they cannot possibly be of equal importance. Sorry, but they just can’t.
It’s not about telling a woman she must give birth. It’s about the unborn child’s right to life. Sorry, but the right to life trumps all other rights.
I honestly cannot comprehend how one can sit there and say “nobody has the right to demand what happens inside another person’s body” while on the exact same side of the token, be saying that it’s ok to kill an innocent human.
It’s not a complex issue.
You make it complex, by trumping the basic human right to life with the right to do commit what would otherwise be a crime within one’s body.
@grim_truth - One right does not always trump another. Not every pregnant woman will chose abortion. They are indeed of equal importance in the whole scheme of things.
Technically speaking, I reckon you can say that people do have the right to their own body over the right of others to live, or else we’d all be forced to give up one of our kidneys so that others may live. Or we’re forced into donating bone marrow so others may live. Heck our livers can regenerate, so at 18 we should all be forced into giving up a small part of our liver, so others may life. No where else are people forced to give up their bodily integrity for others to live. It is only okay to force women to go through pregnancy and birth so that others may live.
There are undoubtedly people who will die because you won’t give up part of your liver. And some unborn babies die because some women have decided not to put themselves through pregnancy, labor, and delivery. Women are not incubators for men, women are actual people who should be able to decide that they don’t want to be pregnant as much as anyone doesn’t have to give up part of their body so that others may live.
@TiredSoVeryTired - They cannot be of equal importance if in one single instant, one right trumps another. If they are of equal importance, than they can NEVER trump one another.
Forcing a woman to go through pregnancy is nothing similar to bone marrow donations. Not even close. First, if one doesn’t donate bone marrow, they aren’t purposefully and maliciously ending the life of another. There is a difference between not performing CPR, and holding someone under water. You are equating the two, and they are not even close.
If a woman does not want to be pregnant, then they should not have sex. If one is not ready for consequences, then they should not partake in the action. That would be similar to me stealing an airplane, taking off, and you saying it’s ok for me to crash it into a preschool because that’s the only way I can live because they have the bouncy house and I don’t know how to land the plane.
No, I must accept the consequences of the action without infringing upon the basic rights of others.
I wonder, do you feel it would be ok for someone to use their 2nd Amendment right to trump your right to free speech? Because that is what the argument for abortion equates to.
@grim_truth - personally, i draw the line at whether entity A is physically attached to entity B. if so, entity B should be able to determine how long that attachment should continue, if at all. i don’t think it’s arbitrary to say that the right to live is null and void if that life can only be supported by a single other person, with no option to relinquish that responsibility. unlike a child, a fetus cannot be handed off to someone else for care. if they invent a way to transplant feti from one womb to another (essentially, adoption before birth), THEN i’ll be against abortion.
is it unfortunate that the only way for a woman to control her body in this case is to kill the fetus? absolutely. but i’m not interested in turning women into walking incubators for nine months. you might be able to force a woman to carry a fetus to term, but that’s about all you can force. as a woman who’d have an abortion in a heartbeat, i wouldn’t do all of those wonderful things pregnant women are supposed to do (avoid alcohol and tobacco, see the doctor, get tests done, etc) for a pregnancy that i’d rather get rid of. chances are, i’d step up my bad habits in hopes that it would lead to a miscarriage. so unless pro-lifers also plan to legislate pregnant women’s behavior to make sure the fetus is properly cared for, i don’t see how they plan to make sure that those women they force to give birth actually do what they’re supposed to do.
@MommaFish89 -
“Eventually it’ll be “acceptable” to kill our own children simply because they’re a hassle, they’re too expensive, they put a damper on our social lives..”
doubtful. children, as independent entities, can be given up. unlike a fetus, children don’t need to be cared for by their birth mothers.
@grim_truth - Life is full of times when rights are equal, but in some instances one right trumps another. My right to peace and quiet trumps your right to freedom of speech if you go yelling at the top of your lungs at 2 a.m. in my town. Such is not the case during the day.
It’s the same thing. People die all the time because we cannot force people to be marrow donors. Heck, people die all the time because there isn’t enough of their blood type on hand somewhere in the world. Dead is still dead whether from lack of action of your part to be on a marrow list or a woman chooses to abort a pregnancy. In both cases, people could do something.
Ready for sex or not. That’s not the damn issue. I knew you were all about punishing women for being sexual beings. Blah blah blah. Always the end result of the abortion debate… women shouldn’t be having sex. Silliness. Men shouldn’t be having sex if they don’t want women aborting babies. How’s that?
As far as I know the 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms, not to murder people. Maybe it says the “Right to bear arms and shoot your neighbor” but I don’t recall that. However, if I entered someone’s house and refused to leave and they didn’t want me there, they can use their 2nd amendment rights, go buy a gun and shoot my ass! Because then the right to their body/property trumps my right to live.
@flapper_femme_fatale - Understood. But is that what it’s about? That they just don’t want to have to walk around with “it” in their belly for the next 9-10 months? Why not carry it to term, deliver, and place it up for adoption then? They wouldn’t have to be responsible for the baby as soon as it’s born. That’s what I’m getting at. They don’t want the inconvenience of not being able to do this and that or having to explain themselves when someone asks about it, you know what I mean? It’s all just “too much” for them to handle.
@TiredSoVeryTired - Again, it’s impossible to be equal if one trumps another. Your right to peace and quiet is NOT equal to the right of free speech. Because free speech does not HAVE to consist of yelling at the top of my lungs at 2 a.m. The right of free speech can be exercised in other ways. The right of life can only be exercised in one way.
Someone dying of natural causes is not the same as having one’s skull cracked open and their brains sucked out. Or burnt to death in a chemical solution.
You are trying to say that one’s failure to jump in and save a drowning victim because of a fear of open water is the same as someone purposefully drowning someone. That is the exact analogy you are making. Sorry, it doesn’t hold water.
While in some states you may use your 2nd Amendment rights to stop an intruder, you cannot, anywhere in the United States, invite someone into your home just to shoot them dead. THAT is what abortion is.
@flapper_femme_fatale - There is already a movement to legalize infantcide based on convenience. It may be a weak movement, but so was the pro-choice movement decades ago.
Abortion is NOT the only way to control what happens inside the body. Again, that’s like inviting someone into your home, just to kill them. There are other methods. If one cannot accept the responsibility of the possible outcome of sex, then they are not ready for sex. If I cannot accept the responsibility of landing a plane, I have no damn business taking off with one.
@grim_truth - ”you cannot… invite someone into your home just to shoot them dead. THAT is what abortion is.” That is probably the best analogy I have seen about anything ever. Can I use that?
Sperm aren’t babies. What an idiot.
Pretty air tight case you have. If a woman thinks her life is endangered by an abortion she can often cross state lines and get an abortion where there is abortion clinic. The Pro life folks have to make more states anti abortion and eventually get a federal mandate to completely stop abortions.
What kind of penalty will stop making people use the abortion method? Ten years?, Twenty years? The penalty phase has yet been determined, so far we are only talking about criminalizing abortion.
@TiredSoVeryTired - Didn’t you not too long ago do a blog telling everyone to shut up and quit arguing about abortion? And yet here you are, arguing it again. Have you changed your mind on that?
@musterion99 - No, lol, I’m pretty sure I said for everyone to shut up about telling a woman what she must do with her body. But since I write on the fly, I reckon I might have said to shut up about the whole abortion argument.
@MommaFish89 - I have three kids and I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to go through a pregnancy. But from everyone person I’ve known to have had an abortion, they all have had many, many reasons for having one. A considerable number of them did go on to have children later in their life and some have not and would not have children.
@grim_truth - Again, some rights trump others at different times. Someone is allowed to yell at the top of their lungs in the middle of the day even if it disturbs my peace.
Most abortions do not result in anyone’s head being cracked open or being burned with chemical solutions. In fact, I am against late term abortions when those types of things happen. Early pregnancies are usually, but not always done, with D&C or D&E. I think D&E is more humane.
Just because a woman is pregnant doesn’t mean she allowed anyone to enter her at all, either the embryo or the man. Hell, my third child is here despite the fact that it was way passed my fertile period and I still don’t know how I got pregnant with him! I wasn’t trying to get pregnant, but I’m sure you are not suggesting I can’t have sex as a then married woman with my own husband just because I didn’t want to get pregnant? Dang, even the Catholic Church allows that.
@TiredSoVeryTired - - Ok, just checking.
She obviously must believe that the baby inside is not really alive, or not really there (then, why the abortion?) There is no comparison.
@MommaFish89 -@grim_truth - Well the Bible DEMANDS you kill (stone him/her to death) your child at times so….whats the problem again? Deu 21:18-21
The problem with her sign is that the analogy doesn’t work.
A sperm isn’t a baby.
@MommaFish89 -
“That they just don’t want to have to walk around with “it” in their belly for the next 9-10 months? Why not carry it to term, deliver, and place it up for adoption then? They wouldn’t have to be responsible for the baby as soon as it’s born.”
that doesn’t change the reality that they’re responsible for the fetus for nine months. i can’t speak for all women, but to me that’s a crazy long time to have to deal with a responsibility you don’t want and can’t get rid of.
“They don’t want the inconvenience of not being able to do this and that or having to explain themselves when someone asks about it, you know what I mean? It’s all just “too much” for them to handle.”
so how is that any different from parents with toddlers wanting to give up their children? what’s wrong with forcing them to continue being parents?
as someone who would have an abortion, i see pregnancy as far more than an inconvenience. i’m uninsured, so i wouldn’t be able to afford anything medical. i don’t even make enough to support myself medically, and my mother and father have been very explicit about cutting off any support if i get knocked up. and in my family, unwanted pregnancies don’t happen without being disowned. simply put, i’d sooner kill myself than become a mother against my will.
@flapper_femme_fatale - Okay, so don’t do things that could land you getting pregnant. Ohhh, wait. That would mean sacrificing something that we want to do when it’d just be so much easier to just kill the consequence right? And there’s nothing wrong with a mother or parents giving their children up for adoption but the baby has to be born in order for that to happen. But it’s just easier to have an abortion and be done with it. No one has to know, right? Not the parents, not even the dad. No one. Abortion doesn’t make you “un”pregnant, it just makes you the mother of a dead baby.
@grim_truth -
“There is already a movement to legalize infantcide based on convenience. “
and i wouldn’t support it. an infant can be removed from an unwilling parent without causing harm to the infant. what’s your point? slippery slope?
“Again, that’s like inviting someone into your home, just to kill them… If one cannot accept the responsibility of the possible outcome of sex, then they are not ready for sex.”
it’s your opinion that abortion is an irresponsible act, and it’s not one that i share. personally, i find women who bring babies to term and become horrible mothers to be far more irresponsible. i also find it irresponsible for pro-lifers to want funding for contraceptives and welfare programs that benefit single mothers to be cut. apparently, conservatives only care about poor, unwanted children while they’re still in the uterus.
@MommaFish89 -
“Abortion doesn’t make you “un”pregnant, it just makes you the mother of a dead baby.”
*shrug* however you want to label it, that’s your choice. personally, i care more about women than feti.
“But it’s just easier to have an abortion and be done with it. “
do you even know anyone who’s had an abortion? it’s never an easy choice to make. my mother had one, long before i came along. it was definitely something she struggled with. but in the end, i think she made the best choice for herself. and anyone who wants to call her irresponsible, lazy, or a murderer is not worthy of my respect.
Killing a viable fetus is murder. Killing an embryo is murder. Capital punishment is murder. All involve intentional ending of life.
@my0615 - A fetus is a collection of cells that just happens to have enough DNA strands to *eventually* and *potentially* develop into a baby.
You look rather young. I think you’re oversimplifying this a lot. You sound very “wham, bam, thank you ma’am. This is what it is – it’s black or white – there’s ZERO gray areas.” Issues are seldom that simple, especially issues involving several entities and life or death. Just my two cents.
Btw …. I wouldn’t her canabalizing me
@grim_truth - Actually…When you invite someone into your home, you planned for them to come or don’t mind them coming. If I opened the door and someone waltzed in on accident or because it was 1am and I’m not thinking right, you bet damn well I will shoot them.
Abortion is a fairly nice process compared to what other animals do. When they aren’t ready for the outcome, they just up and leave their babies to starve. I’m 100% pro choice. I believe that if you’re 90 years old and your quality of life has dwindled, you should be able to apply for euthanasia. I believe if you don’t want a baby prior to it being born, go ahead and not have it. I’m sure the kids in foster care that have aged out and are on the streets could vouch for how awesome foster care is.
@my0615 - hamburger = murder, carrots = murder, all natural coloring (especially red coloring) = murder, not adopting from the animal shelter = murder, flyswatter = murder, paper = murder, just about everything = MURDER.
@plursheep - All good points. We can’t debate opinions or moral beliefs.
@grim_truth - “It’s not about telling a woman she must give birth. It’s about the unborn child’s right to life. Sorry, but the right to life trumps all other rights.”
Says who? You are just arguing from the assumption that your hierarchy of rights is the absolute standard everyone else adopts/should adopts. It’s not. The value of rights is entirely subjective. Furthermore, I hate to break it to you, but your arguments for your views are not terribly convincing.
Anyways, your entire premise falls apart when somebody simply asserts “the right of human beings trumps the right of any non-viable fetus.” This is also the position that is supported by federal law (e.g., Casey, Roe, etc.) Forcefully asserting your views are correct doesn’t make them correct, or even reasonable.
@grim_truth - I am just curious, what is your desired legal policy, specifically? Some questions:
First, would you make all abortions illegal? If not, what is the cutoff point?
Second, how do you propose we care for all the new children brought into the world? Outlawing abortion to any significant degree would result in millions of new children being born annually. Adoption agencies and orphanages are already horribly over-stressed. How do you propose we take care of these children? Are the parents required to care for children they want to abort? Are tax payers supposed to pay for the enormous new orphanages, schools, hospitals, etc. that will be required to care for these children? These are issues that should be addressed way before we restrict abortion.
Third, what is the legal basis for this unparalleled governmental interference with bodily integrity? I mean, if you have no legal basis for changing law that has been in effect for 30 years or more, this is all meaningless moral outrage.
@my0615 - Allowing a woman to die is also murder by your logic.
Does being pregnant mean a woman forfeits ALL right to her own life?
Not at all, It is a personal decision.
There is direct murder and there is indirect murder….to make people feel guilty the Pro Life folks want to charge people who are involved with abortion as murderers. America wants to wage war and indirectly Americans are murderers?
No where does anyone suggest that the Buddhists have it right, that people are reincarnated into babies. Who knows what kind of soul enters into a baby but some of the arguments border on the belief that a special, unique soul is in a baby about to be born. At what point is this unique soul so special? Can’t that unique soul migrate to the next available spot?
All those folks who claim that abortion is murder should be forced to vocalize what sort of punishment should be placed on those guilty. If not then their cries that abortion is murder has a hollow ring to it, basically abortion murder is not that big of a crime.
@grim_truth - “It’s not about telling a woman she must give
birth. It’s about the unborn child’s right to life. Sorry, but the
right to life trumps all other rights.”
Wanting abortion taken out of the equation, considering that this line of thinking (by your standards) is the only right way of thinking, forces this opinion on women thereby telling the woman she must give birth. All ideas about when life begins and the sanctity of life aside, How is it NOT about telling the woman she must give birth?
First, Sperms aren’t babies and neither are eggs, each individually cannot make a fetus
@grim_truth - I just want to know why abortion is acceptable but in a case where a pregnant woman is killed, they charge the murdered with two murders instead one one, apparently claiming the mother had intent to give birth. It just doesn’t seem right. You cant claim it isn’t a human being and then also claim it is not.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090221183118AAJ01iu
@Megabyyte - “Sperm + egg = baby”
Sperm + egg = zygote
Zygote + 9 months + birth = baby.
Sperm + egg =/= baby.
good point
May as well add my two cents in, here. I believe that the pro-life position, as I find to so often be the case with the ‘conservative’ side of most arguments, is a maintained impulse emotional reaction, followed by selective reasoning aimed at rationalizing it.
The issue requires us to stop, ask questions, and think. What defines us as people, and what is our reason for protecting human life? Do we protect it because it has human DNA? If so, then I pose an admittedly outlandish, but nonetheless relevant hypothetical: If you one day discovered a cow, or a pig, or a chicken that acted like a human…a talking animal with humanlike emotions and personality, is it okay to kill it and eat it, or do you believe its life should be protected? I do hope most would answer that it should. And then clearly, the decision to protect a life lies in something other than its DNA. What if we discover life on another planet, much like life on Earth, some “intelligent” and some not? Do we show no regard for that distinction, and decree that any or all of that life can be slaughtered, simply because it does not have human DNA? No? Then the decision to protect a life lies in something other than its DNA.
I addressed abortion in an entry some time ago, in something similar to the second hypothetical, in a world of my own imagination, where the issue of abortion was handled by defining “sentience levels” based on various attributes of life forms that made a lot more sense as criteria for the need to protect those life forms than DNA. Just a basic guideline, but I think it got the point across. Things like, can it feel pain? And what capacity does it have, at its best, for thought, personality, emotion, etc.
A fetus is not a human being. A fetus is not a baby. A zygote is not a fetus, or a human being, or a baby. People equate a zygote or a fetus to a baby because they’re feeling, not thinking. And that’s fine, for them. Nobody’s going to force them to have an abortion. But objectively speaking, it is not the same as a baby, and it is not the same as a human being. And aborting it is not the same as killing a baby, or a human being.
@MommaFish89 - Having an abortion doesn’t make you the mother of a dead baby any more than having a miscarriage at six weeks makes you the mother of a dead baby. Why be so harsh? I have three children. I didn’t become a mother until my daughter was born alive and then I took care of her.
@galadrial - Apparently women shouldn’t have sex unless they intent to get pregnant and have babies for men! So, of course women forfeit their bodies and lives to do the bidding of men.
@Doubledb - Abortion is legal because women have the right to privacy. No where does Roe v. Wade suggest a third party should assault a mother and be able to kill her unborn child. That’s crazy! Only a women herself can decide she doesn’t want to be pregnant, someone else can’t decide that for her. There’s no doubt that abortion ends a life. Just to be against legalized abortion are you really okay with someone like Scott Peterson not getting the death penalty for killing two people? In CA, if you kill one person you can’t get the death penalty, you need a multiple murder. So, let people who assault a mother, cause her unborn child to die, just to be an ass about legalized abortion? I don’t think so.
@grim_truth - “the difference is sperm does not have its own unique DNA code as an unborn baby has. ” (while i think you are wrong about that, i can’t refute it)
so here is a mind-blowing but relevant question, is information conscious? if not, it is irrelevant if the zygote has complete DNA and is in the process of becoming a infant. if it is, then there is a whole new conceptualization to explore. again if information isn’t conscious then killing a zygote which isn’t able to consciously build up prejudice or cause other civil instability- is as socially relevant as removing any other tumor.
in all honesty, one must realize the ‘the right to live’ isn’t a right but a socially enacted entitlement; it objectively is an expression of human-centric bias towards self preservation through group preservation. because it is a bequeathed entitlement rather than a fair assumption, you can’t use it when you start off. murder similarly is based on human perception which causes it to flux/bend under ideological discretion, but again no one is objectively entitled to live.
it merely is considered distasteful and inflammatory to kill ‘just because’ in secular world-views. there are cultures which hold no such bias, like latin america, where life is often seen to have no value.
murder isn’t to kill another human, but to kill another ‘person’. and so the fundamental question you have to be able to defend is what makes a person. for me a person must be fairly articulate and mature. for others children can be people. for others still, the slider indicates personhood starts at conception because of some immeasurable belief in souls.
it is all about the perception of circumstance, and depending on the assumptions different claims come out, you are literally plugging in different values into the function. mine is semi-objective as it deals with qualitative data as opposed to entitlements but in earnest if the person thinks that they were that zygote and can empathize with it no reason will dissuade their feeling. same with mothers who are pro-life because the child is a person, but treat the infant and child as personal property later on. their feelings will trump their, and our, reason.
@lenybobsyouruncle - if information isn’t conscious, then it opens the door to other forms of killing those incapable of consciousness. Those in a coma for example.
If no one is entitled to live, then no one is entitled to anything, thus making all laws invalid. We cannot be a humane nor even nurturous society with zero laws or rights.
As you even admitted, you are also using arbitrary milestones and criteria to define personhood, or even human. Every human is indeed a person. By defining otherwise, one again merely assigns arbitrary criteria. At that point, any arbitrary criteria can be used for all forms of murder. Just as you stated “articulate and mature.” That would be a basis to have 90% of Xanga knocked off.
@Doubledb - exactly
@Saridactyl - telling a woman she MUST give birth would also require fertilization against her will. Your argument then MUST also be fully 100% anti-welfare, as it is everyone’s body being used to support those on welfare. It’s their body doing the work that makes the money that is taxed. Are you also against welfare? If not, your argument holds no water.
@UTRow1 - When speaking of newborns, adoption agencies are stresed because not of the number of babies, but the number of families wanting to adopt and the lack of children, thus the up to 2 year wait I mentioned in my other comment. Again, if you are using the “body integrity” argument, then you must also be 100% against welfare for your argument to hold water. If not, then you contradict yourself and are merely applying arbitrary criteria to suit your view, instead of allowing your view to match the criteria set before.
My view is abortion is murder. It is a human life. When we assign other criteria to human life, it then also allows the killing of humans outside the womb. I believe the answer doesn’t necessarily lay within the law, but rather responsibility. If one cannot accept the responsibility of the possibility of a child, then they are not ready for sex. Just as if I cannot accept the responsibility of landing an airplane, I am not ready to take-off.
Admittedly, I am an odd one. My views and beliefs do not necessarily make up what I believe should be law. (I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I do not believe it should be outlawed, for example.) However, based on the only criteria that can honestly be used to define human life, organism is living (no one argues that a fetus, or zygote is not alive, just that it’s human or a person), and it has human DNA, and it’s own unique DNA, it is therefore a person, deserving of the basic right of life. That is what I believe should be the criteria. This does lead to one of those “chicken before the egg” questions, however. Would birth rates go down if folks know they would have to give birth should they become pregnant? Yes or no, neither side can give an honest answer, as we don’t know. Saying either way would be disnhonest. Which does mean that we would indeed have to figure out what to do if pregnancy rates were to stay the same and all would-be abortions were to still happen and now become born infants. Yes, we would have to prepare to take care of all those children. But that’s based on assuming every would-be abortion would wind up in the mother giving up the child, and still getting pregnant to begin with.
Law does not necessarily make any view reasonable, either. Remember, your donkey can’t sleep in your bathtub.
If the right of life does not trump all other rights, then anyone, at any time, may be killed for any reason. By arbitrarily creating criteria to allow abortion, then your argument holds even less water than mine.
@plursheep - Actually, I’ve known quite a few individuals who have aged through the foster care system, and not a single one would rather be dead.
@flapper_femme_fatale - How is death not causing harm?
Just because you wouldn’t support it doesn’t make it an immoral view in regards to infantcide. At that point, what makes your views any more valid than those who support that movement? Why are children who have been born more deserving of the right of life?
By bringing welfare into the argument, you have also shown your argument is totally invalid. If it’s about the woman’s right to her body, then it is anyone’s right to their body, making welfare just as wrong as making a woman carry a child to term.
Not trying to be rude with it, but based on the last two statements, it really does appear you made your decision to support abortion rights, then formulate the argument around it, instead of looking at the arguments to form your views. I know I will not change your mind (though admittedly, I do still hope). I just think we need to really stop and think and figure out at what point does someone become deserving of that right? It seems all reasonable people (yeah, there are some out there who are obviously not reasonable on both sides) seem to merely disagree WHEN the right of life begins for an individual.
@tendollar4ways - That only works if my argument is based on Bible references. It’s not.
@TiredSoVeryTired - But you’re not talking about absolute rights. My right to yell during the day is not absolute. Even during the day, it can be considered disturbing the peace. Even if I am ordered to be quiet, it does not extinguish my right to free speech, as I can express my views in other ways. Therefore, your right to peace does NOT trump my right to free speech. Now, if you right to peace silenced me to the point where I could not even write in the privacy of my own home, then yes, your right to peace would then trump my right to free speech. But it doesn’t. Thus, rights of equal importance do NOT ever trump each other.
Me putting someone to sleep with ether before killing them is more human than hacking them apart while they are fully conscious. Doesn’t make it ok.
A woman can become pregnant at ANY time. None of my children were planned either. No one is saying “don’t have sex unless you want a child.” Just take the proper precautions and be prepared for the consequences should it happen. When we get behind the wheel of a car, none of us are planning on having an accident. However, if we do, we deal with the ramifications of it: possibility of being sued, higher rates, our car destroyed, the injury of us or someone else. The abortion argument seems to equate to not having to take responsibility if we were to run into someone else. “Hey, I didn’t plan on it, and it’s my body that makes my money, and you can’t have it to pay for the damages and medical costs.”
@VampireOfSeduction - by all means use it! lol
@grim_truth - It’s actually quite simple; it’s in the constitution.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein
they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
We would have to change the constitution to those “conceived” in the States, which could open up a whole host of problems.
Although I do think the sign is foolish because sperm+egg=fetus/zygote whatever, not just sperm.
If people did actually eat unborn fetuses that would be pretty gross. (And probably if you look hard enough you’ll find some remote tribe that did so.)
@theasianwithnoname - So does that then mean we can kill illegal immigrants? See, what it states is that persons born in the US shall have all priviledges and immunities, and that no law can override those. Life if not a priviledge strictly unique to the US. When we get to the next part is when it gets interesting:
“nor shall any state deprive any person of life…”
The constitution is not defining “person” there, otherwise we could kill illegal immigrants, or anyone who is not a citizen. In the first section it is more defining citizen, in the second part, no one can be denied life, liberty, or property. But it does not define what is a person.
I like that. Although it might reach more of the “non-choir” if it specified abortion to fetuses less than 3 months old. One problems with the schism over abortion is that the same word is used by both wides but each side has their extreme of what it means. The anti abortion people’s major problem is they treat the abortion of newly fertilized egg that same as an abortion of an eight month old preganancy. We have to get them to realize that the two extremes are not the same and we can do that by not confusing the word to mean the same.
@TiredSoVeryTired - What??? most of your comment doesnt make any sense. I never said anything about saying he should get away with anything, what I am suggesting is consistancy in the laws. I dont think the law should be able to say abortion is legal, as the fetus is not yet a human being; but then also in a case of a pregnant woman being murdered then say the fetus is a human being and the man gets charged twice, instead of only once. In reality, I dont think anyone should be getting killed; the pregnant woman, her baby, or the other babies being aborted each day. however, if the man is charged for a double murder, as he should be in my opinion, then abortion should also be considered murder/against the law (the only exception being the life or death of the mother, then I think the mother has the right to choose).
the fact that you find this photo to be enlightening or witty for your cause demonstrates your lack of intelligence.
@Celestial_Teapot -
Sperm + egg = zygote
Zygote + 9 months + birth = baby.
Sperm + egg = 100% human DNA. It’s the very beginning of our lives. Are you saying that one second before birth it’s not a baby?
@TiredSoVeryTired - nobody has the right to tell another person what their body must go through or that a woman must complete a pregnancy
As a man I would think that a woman would and SHOULD get extremely upset when a man tells a woman what to do with there body. Especially since a man has no idea what a woman goes through with these situations. It is extremely easy and shallow for us (men) to judge…..
@Doubledb - The two cases are irrelevant. When someone kills a pregnant woman and both her and her unborn child dies, that’s two murders. Under current law, abortion is not murder and is no way related to crimes of violence against women. They are two very separate issues and have very little to do each other. Abortion is about a woman’s right to her own body and her own privacy, it is not about a woman’s right to kill/murder/whatever her own offspring. If that was the case, infanticide would be legal. It’s like saying since I can drive under the influence of Tylenol, I should also be able to drive under the influence of all drugs.
@LadyboyRevolution - Yes. Exactly! It’s very easy to sit back and declare that a woman MUST do something that only women CAN do. It’s quite another to be the woman being told by a man… you must stay pregnant because another life is more important than what you want your own body to go through. If that were the case, that people’s lives were more important than bodily integrity, the government would institute forced bone marrow donations, after all people die without a known match.
I guess I’m never doing neither… well ok, ok… maybe I’ll choose one over the other.
@grim_truth - If a woman gets pregnant and has an abortion, I think she is taking responsibility for her actions. She is doing what she feels is best in her situation. Have you ever witnessed the pregnancy of someone who doesn’t take REAL responsibility? I have and it sure as hell is a lot nastier than an early abortion is. Because you decide that getting pregnant must equal birth, does not mean you have the right to demand it of women.
Why do so many people leap to the “sperm does not have its own unique DNA code” response? First of all it is false – each sperm obviously has its own unique DNA code. What’s true is that it does not contain the COMPLETE DNA for forming a person. But so what? The point is that a sperm cell carries the potential (under the right conditions) to develop into a living, breathing, thinking, feeling, human being – and that sort of potentiality is exactly what many people appeal to when they argue that killing a zygote is the moral equivalent of murder. The “sperm doesn’t have its own DNA code” response utterly fails to address that point.
@grim_truth -
“Why are children who have been born more deserving of the right of life? “
because they are physically independent human beings who aren’t attached to a single other human being.
“By bringing welfare into the argument, you have also shown your argument is totally invalid. “
i’m simply responding to your opinion that abortion is irresponsible. i think that demanding women to have babies against their wills and then cutting off all support is equally irresponsible, of not more so. i don’t see how i’m bringing it into the argument… you brought up irresponsibility first.
“I just think we need to really stop and think and figure out at what point does someone become deserving of that right?”
for me, it’s when a human becomes physically independent. as i’ve said millions of times, i’ll become pro-life when a fetus can be removed from the womb at any point in its gestation and still thrive. i support an individual’s right to relinquish parental responsibility at any point, without penalty or judgment. and i think that supersedes a fetus’ right to live, especially if the responsibility of care for that fetus cannot be transferred.
@MommaFish89 - So your response is to judge people for getting an abortion, while simultaneously judge and chastise people for being pregnant. Makes perfect sense.
@Composing_Life - It’s a joke. Pure and simple.
@grim_truth - and on a side note, i’d leave comments on your own blog post on the topic. but, i’m still blocked. all i want to say is that the notion of it being “only nine months” is utter bullshit. every pregnancy i’ve had personal experience with was horrible for the mothers in different ways… and that was when the pregnancies were WANTED. so yes, i do think it’s asking too much of a woman to be pregnant. anyone acting like it’s no big deal is either ignorant of the suffering of others, or a man.
@grim_truth -
[When speaking of newborns, adoption agencies are stresed because not of the number of babies, but the number of families wanting to adopt and the lack of children, thus the up to 2 year wait I mentioned in my other comment.]
Even assuming this is correct (it’s not), you aren’t addressing my question. My question was: how do you plan to take care of the hundreds of thousands of unwanted children that would be born annually as a result of restricting the availability of abortions? Obviously, even if American orphanage infrastructure were currently adequate (it’s not), it obviously wouldn’t be adequate for ten fold increases in unwanted children every year, right? You can’t possibly believe that people would magically begin exercising unparalleled sexual restraint as a result of abortion restrictions, right? I mean, there’s just no evidence to support that view, particularly when the population is growing, and the number of abortions is increasing.
[Again, if you are using the "body integrity" argument, then you must also be 100% against welfare for your argument to hold water. If not, then you contradict yourself and are merely applying arbitrary criteria to suit your view, instead of allowing your view to match the criteria set before.]
Well, no. The two ideas are completely distinguishable. Believing that a woman should have the ability to control her own body is unrelated to whether or not the government provides social services to the poor. The current legal regimes, funding, rationales, etc. for these two issues are entirely distinct and unrelated. For instance, one idea is based, in part, on personal privacy (at least in constitutional law) and empirical health care data showing that, before the formal legalization of abortion, women’s health was adversely affected by puritanical laws. The other, welfare, is based on political/moral philosophies and different variants of the idea of the social contract. There’s absolutely nothing contradictory about adopting these two positions unless you conflate the two in a strange, incoherent way.
The later part of this argument is just strange. As I mentioned in my previous comment, you don’t get to set the “criteria” for making these decisions. You can have your personal opinion about what should be considered, but you really don’t have any compelling explanation as to why your criteria are superior to other people’s criteria.
[My view is abortion is murder. It is a human life. When we assign other criteria to human life, it then also allows the killing of humans outside the womb. I believe the answer doesn't necessarily lay within the law, but rather responsibility. If one cannot accept the responsibility of the possibility of a child, then they are not ready for sex. Just as if I cannot accept the responsibility of landing an airplane, I am not ready to take-off.]
Right. I understand you feel strongly about these issues. But what I asked you to do was explain how your personal feelings on the matter can be translated into a real world policy that will not bankrupt the country or cause a significant harm to the mental and physical health of women throughout the country. In other words, I am asking you to show why the pro-life position is “responsible” when it has 0 answers to basic questions, like “when is abortion legal” and “how do you plan to pay for all these unwanted children?” Implementing any sort of pro-life policy until there are answers for these questions is, basically, the least humane, most irresponsible position a person can advocate for. You can’t hurting unthinking, unfeeling organic matter with these positions, you are hurting fully cognizant human beings and subjecting them to a rather tragic life.
The truth of the matter is that abortion is not a new issue. It has been a hot political topic for a long time. But pro-life people have never been able to answer these questions. This is not by coincidence. This is because pro-life policies are not viable in the real world. There is a reason why no first world countries have stringent abortion restrictions.
[However, based on the only criteria that can honestly be used to define human life, organism is living (no one argues that a fetus, or zygote is not alive, just that it's human or a person), and it has human DNA, and it's own unique DNA, it is therefore a person, deserving of the basic right of life.]
You can define life as you want, but pretending your definition is the only “honest” one is pretty insulting and ignorant, particularly when virtually all biologists, neurologists, and health care professionals disagree with your assessment, and the current state of the law does not support your view of human personhood. For instance, there are well defined legal person hood requirements that a fetus lack, such as cognizance. Excluding those requirements is arbitrary. Including them is demonstrably less arbitrary. Every human, even comatose and mentally retarded humans, posses a level of cognizance that fetuses/zygotes lack.
Ultimately, pretending that there aren’t differences between zygotes/fetuses and birthed humans is simply a waste of time. We all know, even you, that a fetus does not equal a human being. It’s also a legal fact that fetuses are not treated as persons under the law (they do not receive the same legal protections in constitutional law, federal law, or state law). Trying to equate the two has never been a convincing argument, and it will never be a convincing argument.
So what you need to do is take a step back and explain why a fetus, which is demonstrably not a person in many significant ways, deserves to be treated as a human under the law. The only way you can ever restrict abortion is through the law, so if you ever want pro-life policies enacted you have to be prepared to answer this question.
[That is what I believe should be the criteria. This does lead to one of those "chicken before the egg" questions, however. Would birth rates go down if folks know they would have to give birth should they become pregnant? Yes or no, neither side can give an honest answer, as we don't know. Saying either way would be disnhonest. Which does mean that we would indeed have to figure out what to do if pregnancy rates were to stay the same and all would-be abortions were to still happen and now become born infants. Yes, we would have to prepare to take care of all those children. But that's based on assuming every would-be abortion would wind up in the mother giving up the child, and still getting pregnant to begin with.]
There is 0 evidence that imposing abortion restrictions would decrease birth rates or the rates of unprotected sex. There is little to no reason to suppose that people would magically become personally responsible about sexuality in the face of overwhelming historical evidence to the country (i.e., earlier societies didn’t abstain from sex for fear of pregnancy).
Regardless, don’t you think you should have answers to these kinds of questions before promoting these positions given the tremendous gravity they would have on the personal and economic lives of virtually every American? Wouldn’t that be the responsible thing to do?
[Law does not necessarily make any view reasonable, either. Remember, your donkey can't sleep in your bathtub.]
No, but if the law isn’t on your side, you should be able to explain why it is wrong, and how it should be changed. Right? Otherwise you are putting the cart before the horse, and you likely haven’t thought through some of the implications of your position (e.g., pro-life positions are not viable in the real world for economic reasons).
[I[f the right of life does not trump all other rights, then anyone, at any time, may be killed for any reason. By arbitrarily creating criteria to allow abortion, then your argument holds even less water than mine.]
This is just nonsensical. What makes you think that there cannot be co-equal rights? Similarly, we don’t live in a society with a right to life “superior to all others,” right? We execute prisoners every week. We send our soldiers off to die and penalize them if they decide they want to desert the military. Yet people can’t go about killing each other for “any reason.” So, the right to life isn’t absolute in this country for legal persons. It also certainly isn’t for unborn fetuses and zygotes prior to the point of viability, as they can and are aborted.
Moreover, neither you nor any pro-life proponent, in the history of modern America, has adequately explained why a fetus deserves the same right to life as a legal person, or why a fetus’ “life” is equivalent to a person’s “life.” Declaring that the right to life is absolute and that fetuses have this right is a simple rationale, but it’s not really sensible, and it’s certainly not supported in the law.