?

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

(106 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:pineapple1012
Date:January 30th, 2007 08:04 pm (UTC)

Re: another cent

(Link)
I'm very well aware.
If everyone who had an abortion was just a "dumb kid", a teenager terrified of an unplanned pregnancy, that would be much less sad than the idea that a woman who's well educated and theoretically intellegent would honestly want to destroy a person instead of letting someone else raise it, in order to save them convienience.
I'm not an idiot just because I do not agree with you. For one, I certainly don't "try to kill women like you" who feel they have the right to control their own bodies. Murder is murder is murder, so, that's just stupid. Also, it solves nothing.
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.
However. Abortion is, scientifically, not really about the woman's own body. It's about removing a fetus. 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.
Wanna argue it legally? Connor's law, which charges you with murder twice if you kill a pregnant woman and her child. If its murder to kill a fetus in that way, why isn't it murder to have an abortion? Older civilizations handled this by calling the destruction of a fetus without a woman's consent the damage of property or assault or something. Not so in the U.S.
Wanna arge it ideologically? We have three main rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. In that order. The woman's right to the pursuit of happiness does not eclipse the fetus' right to life.
Also, I don't claim that the adoption/foster child system is perfect. It's far from. In fact, in a lot of ways, it's awful. But I don't really see that its worse than not giving a baby a chance to live.
It baffles me you feel so strongly about letting someone else raise your child, but not about pulling them out of your womb before they have a chance to live.
Last, I am well aware that this is not a black and white issue. There are many difficult situations, such as when a woman's life is in danger, that abortion seems like the only option. I'm not so naive as to think this is an easy thing to deal with. However, I don't think that blanket access to abortion solves things. At. All.
[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?
[User Picture]
From:bjsurvivor
Date:February 2nd, 2007 05:56 am (UTC)

Re: another cent

(Link)
If everyone who had an abortion was just a "dumb kid", a teenager terrified of an unplanned pregnancy, that would be much less sad than the idea that a woman who's well educated and theoretically intellegent would honestly want to destroy a person instead of letting someone else raise it, in order to save them convienience.
I'm not an idiot just because I do not agree with you. For one, I certainly don't "try to kill women like you" who feel they have the right to control their own bodies. Murder is murder is murder, so, that's just stupid. Also, it solves nothing.


Again, the personhood of a zef is not only questionable but irrelevant. A woman is indisputably a person (except, perhaps, to the pope and other devout Catholics and Christian fundamentalists) and, therefore, has every right to evict an unwanted intruder, whether person or not, from her body.

It is not only sad but utterly unconscionable to me and to many, many others that you and your ilk care not a whit for the suffering of actual, born children and adults, who, unlike zefs, possess fully developed nervous systems and are, thus, capable of experiencing the condition of suffering. Scientifically, zefs, because they do not possess developed nervous systems, are incapable of suffering. Our belief is that it is the height of irresponsibility to birth a child that is unwanted, unloved, or that one does not have the resources to properly care for and cherish. One abused or neglected or starved child is worth more than all of the billions of (spontaneously and induced) abortions that have ever occurred (40-60% of zygotes fail to implant - God, the ultimate abortionist!). Actual children and actual (born) people suffer all the time.

I, too, am not an idiot simply because I do not agree with you. Unlike you and your ilk, I am not trying to legally shove my beliefs down your throats and attempting to force to you have abortions you do not want, while you and your ilk are actively trying to force us to gestate pregnancies that we do not want or that we desperately do want but that we cannot properly care for or which are detrimenting our health or our very lives.

I was not always pro-choice (though I was never a proponent of forced gestation). It has never made sense to me to force unwilling people to birth unwanted children, nor to force them to birth wanted children that they are incapable of properly caring for. I used to honestly think that people who had abused their children should be forcibly sterilized and those who were pregnant with potential children that they were incapable of properly caring for should be forced to abort (including sterilizing men who mindlessly sired children). I have long since grown up, become far less egocentric than I was as a child, and have since realized that such actions would be egregious violations of human rights and individual moral agency, as much so as forced gestation would be.

Legally, abortion is not murder. Also, legally there are many degrees of murder - 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. There are also many degrees of justifiable homicide - self defense, accidental, in defense of someone else, etc. Then, of course, there is the death penalty and war, both of which are A-OK with the vast majority of anti-abortionists. "Prolifers" claim to base their argument on the "fundamental right to life of each and every human being," so to expect that they would be anti-war and anti-death penalty is not in the least unreasonable. [Notice that I am not expecting them to be vegans, opponents of antibiotics, or environmentalists] Even defining "pro-life" as only pertaining to zygotic/embryonic/fetal life would necessitate a strong stance against war for the sake of consistency. After all, modern warfare deliberately targets civilians in an effort to coerce enemy governments to accede. Bombs do not magically spare pregnant women, which clearly means that the unborn are deliberately annihilated along with the apparently inconsequential (to proponents of forced gestation) born people.
[User Picture]
From:pineapple1012
Date:February 4th, 2007 04:52 pm (UTC)

Re: another cent

(Link)
I'm amused you think that anyone with any sort of religious conviction doesn't believe a woman is a person. I'm not particularly religious, but some of the best people I know are. Try not to stereotype, you make yourself sound pretty silly, and I'm sure you're smarter than that.
I'm even MORE amused that you think you know my "ilk". . .what "ilk" is that? Females? Females under thirty? People with higher education? Humanities majors? (you didn't know any of these things about me until I just told you them.) I assume what you ACTUALLY mean are people who are opposed to abortion. That's a pretty darn broad spectrum, including men, women, religious, atheists, republicans, democrats, feminists, social conservatives, homosexuals, clergy, and intellectuals. I bet you if you made a ven diagram of people who are opposed to abortion and people who "give a whit for the suffering of actual, born children and adults" you'd find a good bit of overlap (also, if you included people who believe women are people.) I'm not gonna justify my social outlook to you, because I don't have to, but rest assured, I give a damn about the people who are already born.
Secondly, the death penalty and war are, in fact, HUGELY NOT acceptable to "Pro-lifers." Most pro-life organizations are across the board against anything like the death penalty, euthanasia, the targeting of innocent civilians, etc. Check your facts, thank you. I think you're thinking of far right republicans. Or just George Bush.
FYI George Bush is not the pro-life movement, nor is he a beacon of awesomeness for people who don't like abortion. Again, don't use such broad brushstrokes. I don't think everyone who is pro-choice goes out and impregnates hookers on the weekends in order to force them into clinics on mondays. geeeeze.
[User Picture]
From:bjsurvivor
Date:February 2nd, 2007 05:57 am (UTC)

Re: another cent

(Link)
Wanna arge it ideologically? We have three main rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. In that order. The woman's right to the pursuit of happiness does not eclipse the fetus' right to life.

These rights are listed in that order, but it is disingenuous of you to claim that they are listed in order of importance. Please watch the film Amistad, which is based on factual events; the taking of human life to achieve liberty has time and time again been ruled by many courts of law as justification to commit homicide against those who would violate one's personal liberty. Please also Google search McFall vs. Shimp. Throughout Western history, the right to control one's body is so important that it holds even after we are dead and no longer need our bodies and would, thus, not be at all inconvenienced by having our corpses used to preserve others' lives. Not even death row inmates may be forced to donate their tissues and organs to save the lives of others, though they have, of course, lost their right to life. It is deeply offensive and extraordinarily misogynistic that anti-abortionist's seek to relegate women's legal status to somewhere beneath that of corpses, death row inmates, and insensate flesh clots.

Also, I don't claim that the adoption/foster child system is perfect. It's far from. In fact, in a lot of ways, it's awful. But I don't really see that its worse than not giving a baby a chance to live.

It is not just "far from perfect", the adoption/foster child system is atrocious and not fit for any human being. We pro-choicers understand that you and your anti-abortion brethren believe that mere existence is the end-all and be-all, but we pro-choicers believe that human children both need and deserve far better than the mere existence and abject suffering you offer. We believe that quality of life is far more important than quantity of it.

I don't see how you can believe that the abuse, selling into sexual slavery, malnutrition, starvation, and abject suffering of actual children and women matters less than the perceived plight of insensate tissue clots. To me and to many, many others, it is far better to nip a potential life in the bud than to mindlessly birth new, actual human beings that will only know suffering, brutality, starvation, illness, and abject misery.

It baffles me you feel so strongly about letting someone else raise your child, but not about pulling them out of your womb before they have a chance to live.

It baffles me that you feel so strongly about clots of tissue that are incapable of feeling or forming opinions that you would place their perceived "needs" above those of persons who are capable of actually feeling and of forming opinions. It baffles me that anyone would be willing to absolute strangers and an uncertain, possibly brutal, future. Yes, there is a chance that babies who are adopted out to total strangers would have great lives, but the chance is just as great that their lives would be a living hell. I am not willing to take that chance with my flesh and blood. Couples who want to adopt should be content to adopt one of the existing tens of thousands the older, needy children that currently languish in the U.S. foster/dependent care system. Better yet, why don't you and your anti-abortion brethren spend your money on adopting and lavishing care upon them, rather than spending unconscionable billions trying to browbeat and force women into gestating unwanted children?
Powered by LiveJournal.com