?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Hi all... I'm a pro-lifer who is addicted to making icons. Here are… - Livejournal's Center for Abortion Related Icons
May 5th, 2004
09:25 pm
[aeolianafay]

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

(110 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:bjsurvivor
Date:February 2nd, 2007 05:54 am (UTC)

Re: another cent

(Link)
I completley agree that women have the right to control their own bodies. I think women should be able to have sex without fear of becoming pregnant. This is why there is the miracle of birth control, condoms, diaphragms. These are very good things. They give women a lot of control over their own lives. Yes, they require the woman to put a tiny bit of forthought into the sex act (though it takes all of three seconds to slip on a condom) but that's a tiny price to pay for sex without pregnancy.

No contraceptive, not even sterilization (save for hysterectomy) is 100% efficacious at preventing pregnancy. No one contraceptive works for every woman's body. Of course, there isn't a single mainstream anti-abortion organization that proposes contraception and comprehensive sexuality education as a solution to the issue of abortion; in fact, every single last one of them either opposes or completely ignores contraception and comprehensive sexuality education - you know, those things that have proven to work in Europe and other Western nations to actually reduce unwanted pregnancy and, subsequently, the incidence of abortion - as a solution to reduce the incidence of abortion.

However. Abortion is, scientifically, not really about the woman's own body. It's about removing a fetus.

Scientifically, abortion is absolutely about a woman's own body. Only women can get pregnant, therefore, only women can experience abortions. Abortion is about prematurely terminating a pregnancy (in medical parlance, what the lay person calls a "miscarriage" is also an "abortion"). Abortion, whether induced or spontaneous, always results in the death of a zygote/embryo/fetus (zef), because, scientifically, a zef is an obligate biological parasite and, as such, cannot live outside of its host's body.

Only a complete moron would argue that a human fetus isn't human. What else would it be? A chicken? A pig? A zombie? Though they are morphologically indistinguishable from the embryonic through the early fetal stages, human fetuses can only be gestated by women, pig fetuses by sows, chicken fetuses by hens, etc.

If you argue that a fetus is a seperate human being (which I realize you are completley closed off to, but it's a very real, scientific possibility. I can present just as much evidence that a fetus IS a human as you can that they aren't.) then it's not at ALL an issue of the woman's own body, but an issue of the child's rights...

I think what you and others are really driving at when arguing whether it's human is whether the human zygote/embryo/fetus (zef) is a person, which is debatable. Personhood is a philosophical question, the definitive answer to which neither theologians nor philosophers nor scientists have ever come to agreement. In any event, whether or not a zef is a person is irrelevant. A woman is indisputably a person. No born person has the right to commandeer the bodily resources of another person against that person's will, not even blood or bone marrow, the extraction of which impose far less of bodily damage and risk of death to the donor than pregnancy. Anti-abortionists propose granting unborn humans special rights that no born human (including an actual, born child) has to commandeer the body of another person against that person's will.
[User Picture]
From:pineapple1012
Date:February 4th, 2007 04:42 pm (UTC)

Re: another cent

(Link)
I'm going to do this in sections because its easier that way. . .

Of course, there isn't a single mainstream anti-abortion organization that proposes contraception and comprehensive sexuality education as a solution to the issue of abortion; in fact, every single last one of them either opposes or completely ignores contraception and comprehensive sexuality education

I am not, last time I checked, a mainstream "anti-abortion" organization, nor am I assosciated with one. I am continually frustrated by the "pro-life" movement for that very reason, in addition to the insistance on making something which should be simple science and law a religious issue.

I think what you and others are really driving at when arguing whether it's human is whether the human zygote/embryo/fetus (zef) is a person, which is debatable.

I was not arguing whether it's a HUMAN, but rather, if it is a human BEING. That's a very important word. Obviously, this is debatable, and, obviously, it is nearly impossible to come to a conclusion based on science of the personhood or being of a fetus. It is NOT, however, irrelavent. I'd rather err on the side of caution and assume it is than inadvertantly be committing murder. Also, it's a myth that abortion is safer than pregnancy, especially in this day and age. (I will qualify that: in most cases.) I find your description of the fetus comandeering the body of its mother against her will amusing, since you obviously don't believe the fetus is a functioning human being. How can a blob of tissue comandeer anything?
Powered by LiveJournal.com