Prosecuted for attempted abortion

174 thoughts on Prosecuted for attempted abortion

1. In all fairness, what she did caused a born human being to die (speaking of which, what’s the case law on severely disabled people who’re suing their parents for not having aborted them?).

   I don’t suppose customs checks can keep this drug away from people who don’t have a prescription, though, so as you say, making sure more humane procedures are available and accessible is a saner route to preventing this from happening again.

2. (speaking of which, what’s the case law on severely disabled people who’re suing their parents for not having aborted them?).

   Weird, and mostly unsuccessful.* Wrongful life cases generally go nowhere because how do you weigh life with a disability against non-existence? (It’s not exactly a justiceable question.)

   *The case law is mixed regarding parents’ ability to sue physicians for the birth of disabled babies. Some couples have argued that their OB should have performed genetic tests or misinterpreted the results and if they had known their child was going to be disabled, would have had an abortion. Some states prohibit such claims outright, others have allowed them to go forward.

   Any way you look at it, it’s weird as hell.

3. The issue here was not that she had tried to abort, but that she had done so around the 23rd-25th weeks of her pregnancy (they are unsure as to exactly when). In Massachusetts, abortion of any kind after the 24th week is illegal. So even access to a safe abortion clinic might not have helped. Couldn’t have hurt, though.

4. It’s not clear that she knew how far along she was. She did know that abortion was legal in the U.S., though, because she’d had one before.

5. I think the most infuriating aspect of this story is that this woman was also being held on $15,000 bail, despite the fact that fetal age had yet to be determined and she is not considered a flight risk.

   She also allegedly took a pregnancy test months ago which came back negative. So it wasn’t until she felt fetal movement that she took action. One has to believe that things might have turned out very different had she had access to better education and healthcare. Such a devastating example of how the system is failing poor immigrant women.

6. I can’t believe this is happening in my own state. Mass, the same state to legalize gay marriage, prosecuting a woman for a diy abortion. Sheesh, didn’t anyone think of the whole slew of mitigating circumstances here? Cultural, economic, the fact that this is a scared teenager with even less knowledge than average…the fact that she’s being prosecuted at all makes me sick.

7. If she wasn’t sure how far along she was, and depending on the statute she’s charged under, there could be a good argument that she did not meet the mens rea requirement under the statute.

8. I have a question: what did she actually do that was homocide? She took a chemical into her body that induced labor ending up causing the born baby to die. As far as intent is concerned, she intended the fetus to die as a fetus and not after birth.

   So how is this different than a chemical company sky-dumping waste and causing people to die from cancer? Are they guilty of homocide as well?

9. Seems to me that all she did was caused herself to give birth prematurely.

   She didn’t kill it (unless it was poisoned somehow by the ulcer medication). That baby died on its own, as premature babies often do, using its own “right to life” that the antis keep yammering about. She just removed herself from the situation in a way that didn’t specifically kill it, the way normal abortions do.

   When are antis saying the feti are viable nowadays? What limit are they pushing for due to viability? Is the Massachusetts 24-week cutoff a viability thing? If so, then by their own logic she gave birth to a viable baby.

   If it’s “viable” enough that you can’t get an abortion, it’s “viable” enough to give birth to.

10. I can’t believe that some of you are defending this woman. It’s not clear that she knew how far along she was? Oh well, just let her go then. And she had an abortion before! Goodness, maybe she should consider keeping her legs closed for awhile.

    And DAS, it’s good to finally hear an abortion rights supporter admit that abortion involves killing. At least you’re honest about that fact. Callous, but honest.

    “As far as intent is concerned, she intended the fetus to die as a fetus and not after birth.” – DAS

11. And DAS, it’s good to finally hear an abortion rights supporter admit that abortion involves killing. At least you’re honest about that fact. Callous, but honest. – Robert

    It isn’t much of an admission. Is the pro-life crowd going to get all worked up about chemo? After all, it kills human cells … and not just cancer cells. And anyway, we allow people to kill even other people all the time: e.g. have you heard about what’s going on in Iraq? We aren’t prosecuting our own soldiers for homocide, we’re supporting them.

    Actually, even if you do consider a fetus to be human, you would be allowed to kill it under any reasonable legal standard if your life is in dangered by the pregnancy — as self-defense is allowed. And those who would say you have a right to shoot (to kill) a threatening intruder on your property should be in favor of abortion for any reason, even if you think that fetuses are people: after all, fetuses are certainly intruding on a pregnant woman’s body. And they are threatening: having a baby is no walk in the park.

    So if she intended her fetus to die as a fetus, they ought not to prosecute her for any form of murder because she didn’t intend to kill a baby. The worst they can do is some sort of depraved indifference sort of accusation, but by that standard, as I said, shouldn’t chemical companies discharging toxic waste resulting in deaths also be guilty of depraved indifference homocide?

12. Robert, you know nothing about the circumstances of this pregnancy. 2/3 of all women world wide are married when they are still legal minors, the marriage is often arranged or strongly sanctioned by their parents, the women do not have alternative financial means of support, and their husbands often will not use birth control or consider it against their religion. Her husband could divorce her or abuse her for not having marital relations, and she would have no where to go. I’m leaving out the possibility of rape for now. Unless you are willing to sign on to carry a child to term and be responsible for raising it, leave alone others who don’t want to either.

13. DAS – Let me see if I understand your defense of fetus killing. If it’s okay to kill human cells with chemo, it’s okay to kill a fetus. If it’s okay for US soldiers to kill in Iraq, it’s okay to kill a fetus. If it’s okay to kill an intruder in your home, it’s okay to kill a fetus. That might be the worst defense of anything that I’ve ever read. It boils down to “if killing is okay (legal) in those 3 situations then it must be okay to kill in {fill in the blank situation}. I could use the same defense if I shot someone on the street. But this line takes the cake:

    “And those who would say you have a right to shoot (to kill) a threatening intruder on your property should be in favor of abortion for any reason, even if you think that fetuses are people: after all, fetuses are certainly intruding on a pregnant woman’s body.”

    If you’re talking about a woman aborting a fetus because it was the result of her being raped then you may have a point, although it’s probably a better argument for killing the rapist. But if you’re talking about all abortions then you are out of your mind. Aborting a fetus that is not the result of a rape pregnancy is like inviting someone over to your house and then killing them. Neither are “intruding”. Do all pro-choice people follow this line of thinking?

14. I’m really not liking the whole “woman seeking abortion=toxic waste-dumping company”. A woman making the choice to not carry her pregnancy to term is nowhere near the same as a company poisoning lifeforms (human and otherwise) who all just happen to have the misfortune of living near or on where the aforementioned company has decided to dump their waste. Perhaps a company ‘forced’ into responsible waste disposal goes through untold anguish, is thereafter doomed to a life of poverty, and is sneered at by wealthier companies?
    DAS, I’m not sure of your point here. Are you saying women who choose to abort are as morally reprehensible as companies who willfully pollute? Oh, and Robert, how do you know she was somehow ‘at fault’? Birth control fails, mistakes are made, guys coerce their girlfriends into having sex/unsafe sex…Maybe HE should’ve kept his legs shut! Or used his hand/not whined about how condoms “don’t feel good” …The real crime here is the lack of access to safe, affordable abortions.

15. bmc90 – In your first sentence you tell me that I know nothing about this pregnancy. And then you start talking about stats that have nothing to do with this case. Well, I wasn’t there so I guess I have to go with what others are telling me. But I think it breaks down like this: The woman got pregnant. She tried to take a pill that would kill the fetus. There is evidence that she took this pill after the 24th week of pregnancy, which is illegal. The abortion attempt failed and the child was born. It died in a few days because of the pill the woman took. Clearly this woman killed this child. It is as plain as day. I can’t believe some of you are saying that she was ignorant about abortions or this pill or whatever. She’d had an abortion before!

16. Aborting a fetus that is not the result of a rape pregnancy is like inviting someone over to your house and then killing them. Neither are “intruding”. Do all pro-choice people follow this line of thinking? – Robert

    The answer to your latter question is, of course, no. I don’t even think that way in real life. But you assume that any pregnancy unless it resulted from rape is intended? That’s a rather odd assumption, although it does sound familiar (cue Monty Python’s Sperm Song) … so unless you’ve invited the fetus (the pregnancy is wanted at the time of intercourse), doesn’t the intruder analogy apply? But then, how do you prove otherwise: “Ms. X should be prosecuted for homocide because when she had sex she wanted to have a baby and only later changed her mind”? How would you show that beyond a reasonable doubt?

    As to my original point, I wasn’t saying that just because one form of killing is allowed, all forms of killing should be allowed. I was just pointing out that it wasn’t a big “oooh … pro-choicer DAS — who is the most important person ever in the pro-choice movement — is admitting he’s in favor of murdering babies” moment when a posted what I did. As you’d I’m sure admit: some forms of killing are ok, some forms are not. Killing a fetus is OK: for a myriad number of reasons it makes no sense to consider a fetus as a legal person. Killing a baby generally is not. But that’s the point: she didn’t indend to kill a baby, but rather a fetus. And while her actions did kill a baby, the nature of those actions really places her at no more responsibility for the death of a baby than the chemical company in my example. So wouldn’t notions of basic fairness say that if you aren’t going after toxic polluters, you shouldn’t go after this poor young woman?

17. “Oh, and Robert, how do you know she was somehow ‘at fault’? Birth control fails, mistakes are made, guys coerce their girlfriends into having sex/unsafe sex…Maybe HE should’ve kept his legs shut! Or used his hand/not whined about how condoms “don’t feel good” …”

    HE should have, you’re right. But everytime there is an unwanted pregnancy at least someone is at fault. Are you saying that if a guy whines that condoms don’t feel good and then his girlfriend says okay and they have unprotected sex then a pregnancy is only the guy’s fault? Isn’t it both of their faults? Unless this woman was raped, which all signs are that she wasn’t, then the pregnancy was her and the guy’s fault. But she was the one who attempted the illegal abortion that ended up killing the born child. The death of the child is completely her fault.

18. Aborting a fetus that is not the result of a rape pregnancy is like inviting someone over to your house and then killing them. Neither are “intruding”. Do all pro-choice people follow this line of thinking?

    You’re not going to have much luck finding what ALL pro-choice people believe (except for keeping abortion legal), but not all pro-choice people consider having sex an automatic invitation to pregnancy. Is it still an invitation if you use birth control? How reliable does the birth control have to be?

    I can’t believe some of you are saying that she was ignorant about abortions or this pill or whatever. She’d had an abortion before!

    I’ve had amoebic dysentery before, that doesn’t mean I’m an expert on how to treat it. I could probably name the right medicine, but I couldn’t tell you the dosages or how long you have to take it for.

19. DAS, I’m not sure of your point here. Are you saying women who choose to abort are as morally reprehensible as companies who willfully pollute? – mustelid

    No the point is the other way around. If she is guilty of homocide, then certainly willful polluters are. The legal issue (last I checked our laws still don’t consider fetuses to be babies) is not that she was responsible for a fetal death, but that her actions resulted in the death of a baby. But what were her actions?: exposing herself to a chemical which led to premature labor which led to the baby that was born dying. She had no intent to kill a baby as she had no intent to have one in the first place. Her actions resulted in the death of a baby because of a chemical exposure leading to a chain of events culminating in the death of a baby. If her behavior in doing so was depravedly indifferent enough to the possibility that the death of a baby could result, then aren’t willful polluters at least as depravedly indifferent in their actions and thus ought to be prosecuted for homocide as well?

    So I guess what I’m getting at is the double standards of society which sees it as homocide when a poor young woman botches an abortion but somehow views corporate and such crime as being “non-violent”.

20. Robert:

    It might be than the man involved induced or compelled her to take the medication. Perhaps he abandoned her and she was not able to care for the child alone.

    Abortion isn’t a recreational pursuit but rather an act so often born out of desperation or helplessness.

21. I’m starting to miss the old Robert.

    And wev, dude. Scott Lemieux has already scraped you off his shoe, so I won’t bother.

22. Robert, the day that I get to decide whether or not you’re allowed to have an appendectomy is the day that you get to decide whether or not I’m allowed to have an abortion.

    I have to admit, I wasn’t all that sympathetic towards women who claimed they “didn’t know” they were pregnant until late in the pregnancy until a friend of the family discovered that she was six months pregnant after her doctors assured her that she definitely wasn’t (after all, she was still having periods) and gave her all kinds of medication to “fix” her stomach problems. It wasn’t until about 4 months after they started treatment (6 months into the pregnancy) that they finally did a pregnancy test and said, “Whoops!”

    So far, the baby seems to be okay despite the idiocy of her doctors, but if even one thing goes wrong with that kid, she is suing the pants off them. And I am now much more sympathetic towards women who don’t realize they’re pregnant until they’re too far along for a legal abortion.

23. “not all pro-choice people consider having sex an automatic invitation to pregnancy.”

    Are there any that do? If there are I haven’t heard from them.

    I’ve always wondered why atheists are so pro-choice. No chance at an after life. This life on earth is it, no doubt about it. Well that means that whether or not a fetus gets to continue to develop and eventually enjoy life here on earth is completely up to its mother, who it didn’t pick. Who our mothers are is random. That seems very unfair to me. I mean, your mother chose to let you live the only life you’ll ever get while you were still a fetus. It seems the only right thing to do is to return the favor for your fetus. If I was an atheist I would be very, very pro-life, or anti-choice.

24. Magis – “It might be than the man involved induced or compelled her to take the medication. Perhaps he abandoned her and she was not able to care for the child alone.”

    If he had any part in the attempted illegal abortion then he is just as guilty as she is. If he forced her to do it then he alone would be guilty. But this is all speculation. You guys sure are trying hard to come up with excuses for this woman that consist of blaming the man.

    Mnemosyne – “Robert, the day that I get to decide whether or not you’re allowed to have an appendectomy is the day that you get to decide whether or not I’m allowed to have an abortion.”

    There’s one important difference between a fetus and an appendix. If I had an appendix that was a developing human being then you’d have a point. And that’s a great story you told. Make sure you tell the kid when he gets a little older. “Good thing for you that those doctors were idiots or you wouldn’t exist right now!” I’m sure he’ll get a laugh out of that.

25. I mean, your mother chose to let you live the only life you’ll ever get while you were still a fetus. It seems the only right thing to do is to return the favor for your fetus.

    Robert, many women find themselves in circumstances that wouldn’t be much of a “favor” for a child to grow up in.

26. Oh My Flippin’ Gawd! This poor girl! Is there a legal defense fund? I am headed on vacation – but she can have my margarita money!
    This is such a *scary* precedent. Basically, they are prosecuting her because she *caused* her fetus to be delivered early. She took a _legal_ drug. Most babies that age die of prematurity complication. What next, prosecuting women who are pregnant for taking asprin? You know – I don’t really care that she was trying to induce an abortion – that is her right. I know two women who take a daily medicine (Z*loft) which causes a very very small risk of late stage fetal death – but they decided that for the families they *already* have – they’d take the risk. Ya

    Ya know, I was 18 when I found out I was 13 weeks along. These things happen.

27. “Robert, many women find themselves in circumstances that wouldn’t be much of a “favor” for a child to grow up in.”

    Maybe the child wouldn’t think so. And if you’re in such a circumstance then maybe you shouldn’t take ANY risk in creating a child until you find yourself in a better situation. But I don’t see how killing the child while it is in the fetus stage is doing it any favors. I’d rather be poor than non-existent.

28. “You know – I don’t really care that she was trying to induce an abortion – that is her right.”

    Not if she tried after the legal time limit. Then it is very much not her right.

29. Please tell me this is not the same Robert who told Shakes that she was too unattractive to be raped.

30. I’ve known two women who didn’t know they were pregnant until they were about four months along, educated women who were well-informed about reproductive biology. It happens, especially with women who continue to have periodic bleeding (as can happen if they’re on the pill; bleeding often occurs in any case around the time of implantation).

31. But Robert, you only think that because you’re already born. If your mother had aborted you (or not conceived you at all) you wouldn’t care one way or the other.
    Isn’t there a religion (catholicism?) where they believe that fetuses go to limbo if they die before being born? I could see those people making the argument that you owe your fetus life to give them a chance at going to heaven but athiests don’t think that way. If you aren’t alive you can’t care about what happens to you.

32. Whoops, I was responding to Robert’s comment #27.

33. No, these pills do not kill the fetus. The pills induce labor; they are used in hospitals in certain circumstances for that purpose (even though they are marketed for preventing ulsers).

    I agree completely!

34. “Please tell me this is not the same Robert who told Shakes that she was too unattractive to be raped”

    Not me, I would never say something like that, and I don’t know who Shakes is.

    “I’ve known two women who didn’t know they were pregnant until they were about four months along, educated women who were well-informed about reproductive biology. It happens”

    I’ve always thought that it doesn’t make much since to outlaw abortions after a certain development stage. If it’s not a person at 20 weeks why is it a person at 25? Or 8 months? Or 1 year? Wait, scratch that last one. Although, I remember just as much about being 3 months old as I do about being in the womb. What’s the difference, really?

35. “…athiests don’t think that way. If you aren’t alive you can’t care about what happens to you.”

    You can be alive and not care what happens to you as well, like when you’re 3 months old. Are you saying that if something doesn’t care about what happens to it then it’s okay to kill it? Are you saying a fetus isn’t alive? How does it grow then? You weren’t alive when you were an 8 month old fetus but you were one hour after you were born? I find that hard to believe. I think it makes much more sense that both are alive, and it’s not okay to kill either even though neither care about what happens to them.

36. The thing that really strikes me, is that in my mind she did the most defendable form of abortion. Maybe I’m understanding it wrong, but this pill she took simlply induced labor, right? Even those that argue that a fetus is a seperate entity from women can’t argue with that. She didn’t stick a hanger up her body and “kill” the fetus. She caused the fetus to be removed from her body. Surprise, surprise, it could not survive once disconneted from the woman’s body. So I guess a fetus can’t be considered it’s own entity after all.

    Oh and Robert…. just cause something has the potential to live does not mean stopping that from happening is murder. Unless you served time for jacking off, you have no leg to stand on.

37. ” And if you’re in such a circumstance then maybe you shouldn’t take ANY risk in creating a child until you find yourself in a better situation. ”

    Shorter Robert: “If your situation sucks, never have sex!”

    While I can’t say I’m 100% in favor of allowing late-term abortions, I take serious issue with the suggestion that the reason women have late-term abortions is that they said, “Nah, let’s put off getting an abortion for five more weeks–it’ll be more fun then!” Sounds to me more like women have their situations drastically change, or an abortion was not available before, or they only just found out.

38. No Robert, I’m saying that your opinion on whether you’d have wanted to be born or not is irrelevant because you can only have that opinion once you’re already born. I’m also saying that your question about why atheists are pro-choice doesn’t make any sense. Just because we believe that your life on earth is the only life you get doesn’t mean that we’re committed to making sure as many beings as possible get a chance to live (or be born, since a fetus is alive, as you point out).

39. I’ve always wondered why atheists are so pro-choice. No chance at an after life. This life on earth is it, no doubt about it. Well that means that whether or not a fetus gets to continue to develop and eventually enjoy life here on earth is completely up to its mother, who it didn’t pick. Who our mothers are is random. That seems very unfair to me.

    Without “God” or some similar higher power to magically make it happen, how could a being without a brain complex enough to support consciousness have anything like what makes us people? Call it consciousness, call it a soul, call it anything—up until sometime fairly late in the pregnancy there’s nothing to establish and support it. Without a God to decree a physical impossibility, an early-pregnancy embryo or fetus can no more be a human person than a light bulb can be a computer.

    That’s why.

40. DAS, kindly stop with the abortion-seeking woman=toxic waste dumping company. Let me come at it from a different angle: would you like to say the potential ‘products’ are the same? That’d look something like unwanted fetus=toxic waste. Yes, it’s a ridiculous, ugly comparison that no one in his/her right mind would make. So really, knock it off, and find a new example.
    Yes, this woman has already had an abortion. As previous posters mentioned, women don’t always know they’re pregnant soon enough to take action. And, the article made very little mention of her circumstances. What if Amber couldn’t afford another medical abortion? If she couldn’t get enough money together to abort the child, how was Amber supposed to support the resulting child? Yes, there are programs like WIC and Headstart. They don’t cover everything.
    DAS and Robert, as you may have guessed, I’m very much prochoice. Whatever a woman chooses to do about her pregnancy: abortion, adoption, raise the child herself, she should be able to find support to do that effectively. That is surrently not the case. I’ll stop heckling prochoicers just as soon as every child in need of “the system” is placed in a loving, competent foster- or adoptive home. DAS, Robert, how many foster/adopted kids do YOU have?

41. I’d like to offer a hearty “fuck you” to anyone, anywhere, who says any woman should “keep her legs shut.”

42. Fansler – “I’m also saying that your question about why atheists are pro-choice doesn’t make any sense. Just because we believe that your life on earth is the only life you get doesn’t mean that we’re committed to making sure as many beings as possible get a chance to live (or be born, since a fetus is alive, as you point out).”

    Wow. How very selfish of you. I guess my question doesn’t make any sense because I was assuming that you would care about other people not having their lives cut short. I won’t make that mistake with atheists anymore.

    Matan – “Shorter Robert: “If your situation sucks, never have sex!””
    Or have sex and if you get pregnant raise the life you created. That would be another way to go.

    Christine – “Oh and Robert…. just cause something has the potential to live does not mean stopping that from happening is murder. Unless you served time for jacking off, you have no leg to stand on.”

    A fetus is alive. A sperm has the potential to be alive if it combines with the egg. I don’t understand why people compare a fetus to a sperm. If you don’t think there’s a difference then you have a pretty sick view of human life, I think.

    Kyra – “an early-pregnancy embryo or fetus can no more be a human person than a light bulb can be a computer”

    Very poor comparison. A single embryo will develop into a single fetus which will develop into a single infant which will eventually develop into a single adult. A single light bulb can never develop into a computer.

43. “I’d like to offer a hearty “fuck you” to anyone, anywhere, who says any woman should “keep her legs shut.”

    Say what you want but that is often good advice for a woman or a man. It would have kept the woman in question out of the situation she’s in. I bet if she could go back in time she would have kept her legs shut.

44. I’ll stop heckling prochoicers just as soon as every child in need of “the system” is placed in a loving, competent foster- or adoptive home. DAS, Robert, how many foster/adopted kids do YOU have?

    You mean anti-choicers I assume? Anyway this is another common weak argument for abortion. Not-existing is better than growing up an orphan? You could make the same argument for killing a 3 month old orphan. Life is going to suck for this kid, just kill it.

45. This could be my own bias, but I personally don’t take it seriously when men are anti-choice. It’s just too easy to say that women should “keep their legs shut” and just go ahead and have an unwanted baby when you’ll never be in that situation for yourself.

46. Wow. How very selfish of you. I guess my question doesn’t make any sense because I was assuming that you would care about other people not having their lives cut short. I won’t make that mistake with atheists anymore.

    Sorry Robert, it won’t work. You know that pro-choice and pro-life people disagree about when life begins and whether fetuses are people in their own right. If a fetus isn’t alive, then there’s no question of anyone being selfish or unselfish about what they do about it.

47. What happened to this girl is very scary. She took a pregnancy test. It was negative. But–haha, surprise!

    Her DIY abortion was based on bad information, and if I didn’t feel charitable I might even go so far as to call her stupid. But, fergoodnessake, our country has done far worse things based on bad information (WMDs, anyone?). She made a decision regarding her own body, and her intent was not to kill a human being, so she should not be charged with intentionally killing a human being.

    Robert, you keep your legs shut, no one will make you have an abortion.

48. D’oh. I apologize for my incredibly sloppy proofreading job in that last post. To repeat my point correctly: I will stop heckling the prolife, antichoice crowd once they have ensured that all the endangered little feti they want will be properly provided for once they’re popped out. And since you prolifers claim to luuuuv helpless children so much, naturally, y’all won’t rest till every child in need of a loving, competent home has one. No, really. DAS, Robert, how many kids have you adopted/fostered?
    I notice you blew right by that point. It is my belief that no child should suffer from my lousy parenting, or have to live with having half of their DNA come from me. In keeping with my beliefs, I’ve decided not to reproduce in this lifetime. You guys apparently go for something akin to Monty Python’s sperm song. Shall we set up those medical experiments for those cute little former spermies whose parents can’t afford to feed them? Sucks, but it’s the Lord’s will, after all./sarcasm.

49. “Sorry Robert, it won’t work. You know that pro-choice and pro-life people disagree about when life begins and whether fetuses are people in their own right. If a fetus isn’t alive, then there’s no question of anyone being selfish or unselfish about what they do about it.”

    If a fetus isn’t alive then what is it? A fetus grows by cell division, correct? Well tell me something that goes through cell division that isn’t alive. Wikipedia on cell division: “Cell division is the biological basis of life.” Looks like that’s settled. A fetus is alive. I can’t believe anyone would dispute this in the first place. And when you end the life of something you are killing it. Everyone here can insult me if you like, but these are the facts.

50. Why is it all the Roberts who show up here are god-bothering trolls?

    Robert, dear, see those buttons over the box where you type your spittle-flecked comments? They’re for formatting. USE THEM.

    If you’re talking about a woman aborting a fetus because it was the result of her being raped then you may have a point, although it’s probably a better argument for killing the rapist. But if you’re talking about all abortions then you are out of your mind. Aborting a fetus that is not the result of a rape pregnancy is like inviting someone over to your house and then killing them. Neither are “intruding”. Do all pro-choice people follow this line of thinking?

    Ohhhhh, I see that you’re one of *those* anti-choicers. The ones who *say* that they’re so very, very concerned about the widdle baybeeez, but who really are all about Teh Sex. I mean, if the “she shoulda kept her legs shut” didn’t tip me off, the mealymouthing about “well, a fetus is a live person, with full human rights, and killing it is wrong, wrong, wrong, but we’ll make an exception if the sex that created the fetus wasn’t the mother’s idea.”

    Sorry, punkin. The only pro-life stance I can buy as being grounded in concern for the unborn is one that makes exceptions only when the mother’s life is at stake. Otherwise, it’s just slut-punishing, which you’ve amply demonstrated.

    And I just love the intruder analogy. As if you can’t ever ask someone to leave your home once you’ve invited them in for coffee. I’d certainly consider someone a threat to me if they refused to leave when I asked them to.

    Speaking of which, you might want to read the commenting policy for this blog. You’re a guest here at this blog, which is very much like our living room.

51. A tumor is alive, too, Robert. But take either tumor or fetus out of the environment which supports it, and see how long it lasts.

52. “No, really. DAS, Robert, how many kids have you adopted/fostered?”

    I think DAS is on your side. As for me I don’t have any kids. But I’m pretty young. You’re making a good argument for adoption by the way, not abortion rights. All you’re saying is that life isn’t great for orphans, so if a women is going to give her child up for adoption then she should just have an abortion because there are already so many orphans. If you truly believe that aborting the child would be better than letting it be born into the world than why not just kill all orphans under the age of, say, 1? Wouldn’t that also be better for them than living their terrible lives? But c’mon, you don’t really believe that anyone gets an abortion because they think it’s best for the kid, do you? Women get abortions because they think it’s in their own best interest. That’s not meant to be a shot against women. If men could have kids they we would do the same thing. Probably in greater numbers than women.

53. “A tumor is alive, too, Robert. But take either tumor or fetus out of the environment which supports it, and see how long it lasts.”

    Take an infant out of the environment that supports it and see how long it lasts. And I’ll check out the commenting policy, but I haven’t been nearly as rude as people have been to me. I think I said DAS was out of her mind for the “a baby is an intruder” comment, but I stick by that one. In fact you were much ruder in your comment as you mocked me. And I said that DAS had a point if she was talking about rape pregnancy. I didn’t say that that’s what I think. And I’m sorry if I don’t comment in a style that you like. I just like the good old cut and paste. I don’t think it’s that big a deal, you just don’t like what I have to say.

54. Robert, what did I say about the formatting buttons? Do be a dear and use them.

    An infant can be taken care of by anyone and is physically independent of its mother. A fetus must be bodily connected to the mother in order to survive.

55. In fact you were much ruder in your comment as you mocked me.

    Awwww, poor Robert. So put-upon. So mocked.

    I’m sure you can find a more hospitable environment elsewhere, hm?

56. BTW, I notice you completely failed to address the part of my comment which noted that you don’t seem to have a problem with killing fetuses if their mothers didn’t enjoy the sex. So, how about it?

57. I read the commenting policy and I don’t see what rule I broke, unless I’m a troll. But I can’t be a troll or else you wouldn’t be feeding me. And I didn’t see any rule about formatting buttons, and nobody before you said it bothered them.

    I’m basically saying that a fetus is 1.) alive and 2.) a human being. The fact that it must be connected to its mother at all times doesn’t prevent either from being true. How about my cell division point? Doesn’t that prove a fetus is alive?

58. I have to go in a minute so don’t think I’m avoiding you.

    “BTW, I notice you completely failed to address the part of my comment which noted that you don’t seem to have a problem with killing fetuses if their mothers didn’t enjoy the sex. So, how about it?”

    What would make you think I believe that? You know I don’t. I simply said that she had a good point that a raped woman might see the rapist’s baby inside her as an intruder, and I made that point for her, she said that about all babies, which is pretty weird if you ask me.

59. A fetus is alive, but it’s not a person. In fact, I’ll go as far to say that newborns also aren’t people. Babies don’t really seem to start developing their own personalities until they reach at least one year old.

    However, we have a legal standard that says, as long as an embryo or fetus can’t survive outside of its mother’s body, it has no “right” to be alive. The pregnant woman’s right to control her own body trumps any “right” that potential person has to a future existence/personhood.

    There is a gray area about when a fetus becomes a person, so, it makes sense to have viability be the legal standard. If the fetus were removed by C-section and could survive, then it’s no longer technically dependent on its mother. Therefore, a woman no longer has 100 percent control over what happens to that fetus.

    As a pro-choice atheist, my beliefs are that there are some things that are worse than death in utero. An aborted embryo or fetus has never known suffering. It never has truly existed, never experienced a thought, an emotion. So, who gives a sh*t about what happens to it?

    In a world with almost seven billion people swarming on it, I’m perfectly content with less people being born, even if it takes abortion. What good will any of our lives be when our resources are maxed out and whole-scale genocide becomes the standard of the day?

60. “A fetus is alive, but it’s not a person. In fact, I’ll go as far to say that newborns also aren’t people. Babies don’t really seem to start developing their own personalities until they reach at least one year old.”

    Finally someone admits that you must believe this if you think a fetus isn’t a human being.

    “Awwww, poor Robert. So put-upon. So mocked.

    I’m sure you can find a more hospitable environment elsewhere, hm?”

    So you only like to discuss topics with people who totally agree with you? And you’re a lawyer?

61. “A fetus is alive, but it’s not a person. In fact, I’ll go as far to say that newborns also aren’t people. Babies don’t really seem to start developing their own personalities until they reach at least one year old.”

    “Finally someone admits that you must believe this if you think a fetus isn’t a human being.”

    I should have also said that you must also believe that killing a child is acceptable up to the age of one. Because they aren’t really people. Like fetuses. Even though every infant will develop into an adult if they don’t die prematurly, just like every fetus will.

62. Yes, thank you Erika and Zuzu. Exactly.

    I’d also like to make the point that carrying a child to term isn’t exactly a risk-free undertaking. If I decide that I don’t want to risk my health or my well being to give something life (that can’t care about the outcome) then who are you to say that I made the wrong decision? Can you see into the future and tell me if I would have a totally healthy pregnancy?

    You also said:

    But I don’t see how killing the child while it is in the fetus stage is doing it any favors. I’d rather be poor than non-existent.

    But if my mother, when she was pregnant with me, knew or suspected that she would have to sacrifice her health or her future to give me life then I would rather that she took care of herself over giving me life. Especially since I wouldn’t care one way or the other. So who’s to say that your interpretation of what a fetus would “want” is the correct one?

63. “So who’s to say that your interpretation of what a fetus would “want” is the correct one?”

    True. Who’s to say yours is? That’s why everything should be done to allow them to be born into the world. Then they can decide for themselves: life or suicide. Very few choose the latter, that’s why I’m pretty sure that my opinion that a fetus would want life on earth is the correct one.

64. But if my mother, when she was pregnant with me, knew or suspected that she would have to sacrifice her health or her future to give me life then I would rather that she took care of herself over giving me life

    Yeah, I’d also rather not have been born than have my mother forced into pregnancy. That’s something I wouldn’t wish on anyone, let alone my own mother. Voluntary pregnancy looks difficult enough.

65. But I can’t be a troll or else you wouldn’t be feeding me.

    Oh, honey. You’re new here, aren’t you?

    And I didn’t see any rule about formatting buttons, and nobody before you said it bothered them.

    Well, considering I’m one of the site administrators on this here fine blog, and the rules clearly say “our site, our discretion,” it doesn’t really matter much what you think, does it? I am telling you, in my discretion, that you need to make use of the formatting buttons.

    I’m basically saying that a fetus is 1.) alive and 2.) a human being. The fact that it must be connected to its mother at all times doesn’t prevent either from being true. How about my cell division point? Doesn’t that prove a fetus is alive?

    Whoopee. It’s alive. It’s living human tissue that’s undergoing cell division. So is a tumor. Doesn’t make it a person. And personhood, my dear, is where it’s at when you’re discussing rights.

    We’re already having this discussion on another thread. Like I said over there, one good way to know that your fetus isn’t a person yet is to see whether the IRS audits your ass when you try to claim it on your tax return as a dependent. You certainly can’t get a Social Security number for it.

66. And personhood, my dear, is where it’s at when you’re discussing rights.

    Nice!

67. “BTW, I notice you completely failed to address the part of my comment which noted that you don’t seem to have a problem with killing fetuses if their mothers didn’t enjoy the sex. So, how about it?”

    What would make you think I believe that? You know I don’t. I simply said that she had a good point that a raped woman might see the rapist’s baby inside her as an intruder, and I made that point for her, she said that about all babies, which is pretty weird if you ask me.

    Gosh, what would make me think that? Perhaps your very first comment in this thread, when you said about this unfortunate woman:

    Goodness, maybe she should consider keeping her legs closed for awhile.

    And later:

    Say what you want but that is often good advice for a woman or a man. It would have kept the woman in question out of the situation she’s in. I bet if she could go back in time she would have kept her legs shut.

    My, you’re a judgmental little nipper, aren’t you? How old are you, son? 16? 17?

    That’s why everything should be done to allow them to be born into the world. Then they can decide for themselves: life or suicide. Very few choose the latter, that’s why I’m pretty sure that my opinion that a fetus would want life on earth is the correct one.

    Yes, because never having existed at all is the same as actively taking your own life.

    Why, Robert! You’re almost entertaining in your lunacy!

68. So you only like to discuss topics with people who totally agree with you? And you’re a lawyer?

    Silly little whelp. It’s not that I don’t like to discuss topics with people who disagree with me, it’s that I don’t like to discuss topics with people who resort to whining about how meeeeaaaaan I am when the flaws in their arguments are pointed out. Don’t much care for whining.

69. True. Who’s to say yours is? That’s why everything should be done to allow them to be born into the world. Then they can decide for themselves: life or suicide. Very few choose the latter, that’s why I’m pretty sure that my opinion that a fetus would want life on earth is the correct one.

    But by the time the child is born, the damage could already have been done. That’s why I specifically talked about the risks of pregnancy. So, again, if you have to make the decision before the fetus can have an opinion, why should we assume that your choice is the right one? Keeping in mind that the fetus won’t care if we choose not to give it life?

70. True. Who’s to say yours is? That’s why everything should be done to allow them to be born into the world. Then they can decide for themselves: life or suicide. Very few choose the latter, that’s why I’m pretty sure that my opinion that a fetus would want life on earth is the correct one.

    No, because that negates the wishes of the person forced to give over the pain, resources, and time needed to bring about said birth. You’ve basically made the point that clump of cells A, by virtue of a previous act committed by person B, has more right to the body of person B than does person B. And why have you made this argument? You deem person B not so much a person but a walking uterus. Sorry, in the real world, people who have been born have more rights to their own body than do clumps of cells. No one has a right to another person’s body. I can’t take your liver because it might help me out. I can’t set up a nutrient transfer system whereby your body feeds mine. If I don’t have that right, fetuses don’t either.

71. And that’s a great story you told. Make sure you tell the kid when he gets a little older. “Good thing for you that those doctors were idiots or you wouldn’t exist right now!” I’m sure he’ll get a laugh out of that.

    Well, considering that her older child is severely autistic, there’s a good chance that this child will be severely autistic as well.

    But when she’s changing both of her kids’ diapers when they’re 30 years old, I’m sure she’ll think of how hiliarious her situation is, having two severely handicapped children instead of only one because her doctors fucked up.

    In fact, I’ll call her right now and tell her how funny you find her situation to be. I’m sure she’ll appreciate knowing that you think she deserves to take care of two severely handicapped kids for the rest of her life because of her doctor’s mistake.

72. That’s why everything should be done to allow them to be born into the world. Then they can decide for themselves: life or suicide.

    By that argument, wouldn’t it be best to conceive and bear as many children as physically possible, regardless of one’s desire for or ability to raise the children? After all, who knows what little oocyte #234482 or sperm #823772983 wants? So what are you waiting for? Get off the computer and go seduce someone already! (I take no responsibility for any child support claims that result from anyone fool enough to attempt to follow this sarcastic advice.)

73. Robert, would you support legislation requiring a man who had fathered a child he didn’t want to give a bone marrow transplant to the child to sustain its life (assuming that was necessary and the father was a match)?

74. Oh, and Robert, I’m pretty sure that Christopher Forder’s last thought was not, “Well, at least my mother didn’t abort me.”

75. If I had an appendix that was a developing human being then you’d have a point

    Cloning: G0 freezing. Transplantation of the nucleus into a non-primate host egg. Implantation in a uterus. Development. It could happen. If it does will you then refuse appendectomy if your appendix becomes infected? Or maybe you’ll go with self-defense, but will you then refuse prophylactic appy?

76. I’m not going to even address you, Robert. But, CHRISTINE: Have you read the two articles? Coat hanger or pills, the intent was to end her pregnancy- not deliver at 6 months. And yes, I am pro-choice.

77. I’ve always wondered why atheists are so pro-choice. No chance at an after life. This life on earth is it, no doubt about it. Well that means that whether or not a fetus gets to continue to develop and eventually enjoy life here on earth is completely up to its mother, who it didn’t pick. Who our mothers are is random. That seems very unfair to me. I mean, your mother chose to let you live the only life you’ll ever get while you were still a fetus. It seems the only right thing to do is to return the favor for your fetus. If I was an atheist I would be very, very pro-life, or anti-choice.

    What?! This is pure lunacy. You answered your own question, Robert. Because life on earth matters, women often choose not to spend the entirety of it pregnant or giving birth. The possible complications due to pregnancy/childbirth might be enough alone to deter a woman from wanting to risk her own one and only life. (I also second what JackGoff said.) And because life on earth matters, many people choose to have fewer children for economic and environmental reasons.

    And why would any woman owe a “favor” to a fetus simply by being born? Does a man owe it to an unadopted child to take him/her in, simply because said man had a happy family life?

78. I bet if she could go back in time she would have kept her legs shut.

    I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that it’s quite possible to have sex with your legs shut.

79. But when she’s changing both of her kids’ diapers when they’re 30 years old, I’m sure she’ll think of how hiliarious her situation is, having two severely handicapped children instead of only one because her doctors fucked up.

    This is kind of a sidetrack here (I don’t think a woman should be required to bear a fetus with our without disabilities for any reason), but the outlook might not be as bleak as it sounds. I’ve read some blogs by autistic adults, and a lot of people who were given little prospect of anything in childhood went on to develop substantially beyond expectations. Here’s one link if you want to see someone with severe autism (you’d never know it by her writing, but she’s diagnosed as low-functioning), who turned out to be capable of far more than her doctors thought.

    Again, this isn’t an argument against abortion. If a woman doesn’t want to have a baby, that is and should be her choice. But if you want to see how expert opinions don’t dovetail neatly with reality, this could be a good place to start.

80. Listening to Robert talking about what a fetus would “want” kind of calls to mind that “Look Who’s Talking” movie where from the time when there’s, like, an embryo developing there’s full-grown adult voiceover talking about how great it is to chill out in the womb…

    Rational/scientifically-inclined folk tend to forget that a lot of people believe not only in life after death but life before birth – that is, that floating somewhere out in the ether was the personhood that would be you, maybe in between reincarnations or freshly assembled by the deity of your choice. That floating something that was you before you were you was inserted (via sperm magic?) into the womb and grew into a baby and.. well, memory is a little fuzzy for that bit, but it was definately still you there from the very beginning. If you look at things from that point of view, then a being that was put into the womb for further growing certainly has the right to live and it’s just unfair to deny it entry into the world.

    Of course, any knowledge of developmental biology or psychology or a simple lack of religiousity tells the rest of us that personhood is built from the ground up only once there’s a brain developed enough for input and some stimulus to take in… it’s not an existing human that just expands like a sea monkey or something, living humans are assembled from scratch in the womb. I don’t call the arresting of that process murder, but I don’t have any sort of supernatural belief to hinder my support of the personhood of a full-grown woman.

81. This is kind of a sidetrack here (I don’t think a woman should be required to bear a fetus with our without disabilities for any reason), but the outlook might not be as bleak as it sounds.

    Yeah, I know. But at a minimum she’s got at least two years of watching the new kid every day, not only for signs of autism, but to see if there are any long-lasting effects of the drugs her idiot doctors gave her to fix her “stomach problem.” So it pisses me off to see Robert swanning around deciding that he’s the only judge of whether or not a woman should continue a pregnancy.

    Her older child is 12 and, though he’s getting very good therapy and education, he’s disabled enough that he will probably require a group home setting at a minimum when he’s an adult. Which is yet another reason why she wasn’t terribly thrilled to be having another child, even if she’s lucky and the baby turns out not to be autistic, or is only mildly so.

82. Wow, Ako, that link was fantastic. Thanks so much for posting it–I’ve been reading through her archives and they’re all amazing.

83. Where is Robert today? Doesn’t he want to play with us anymore?

84. From reading the article, it seems pretty clear that this woman broke the law. The law may be flawed, but as was mentioned here a couple of weeks ago, her jury is going to determine whether she broke the law, not whether the law is just.

    Add in her confession (I killed my baby), and I think she’s going away for a long time.

85. The drug is cheap and pretty safe if used early in pregnancy — but women who are using the drug illegally don’t have medical oversight, and often have no other option if their pregnancies are more advanced.

    Just curious:

    By “more advanced” do you mean past 24 weeks? If so, what other options do you think should be available?

86. Wow, Ako, that link was fantastic. Thanks so much for posting it–I’ve been reading through her archives and they’re all amazing.

    You’re welcome. She’s an amazing writer, isn’t she?

    So it pisses me off to see Robert swanning around deciding that he’s the only judge of whether or not a woman should continue a pregnancy.

    I understand. I don’t think it’s anyone’s place to decide that someone else doesn’t have a good enough reason for having an abortion. That’s one of the things that creeps me out about some pro-lifers who support rape exemptions; they don’t so much object to abortions, as they want someone else to have the right to pass judgment on the woman and decide if she’s worthy or not.

    Like I said, it was kind of a sidetrack. Just something I thought mught be helpful.

87. By “more advanced” do you mean past 24 weeks? If so, what other options do you think should be available?

    No, I meant more advanced than 7-8 weeks, which is around the time when medical abortion (i.e., abortion using this drug) stops being safe. I was referring primarily to women in countries where abortion is illegal or unavailable. If they find out that they’re pregnant and it’s later than 8 weeks in — not very long into pregnancy — medical abortion becomes far less safe.

88. Add in her confession (I killed my baby), and I think she’s going away for a long time.

    And celebration is in order, forever and ever amen! A victory for moderates everywhere! I hope you don’t get too excited in your quest to wank to this, RM, as I wouldn’t want your tiny, tiny heart to explode from overexertion.

89. It’s funny… Robert seemed to think that people whose mothers didn’t have abortions might be grateful that they didn’t. I’m in the unenviable situation of knowing that my biological mother wasn’t able to have an abortion when she got pregnant at 17 (abortion wasn’t legal here then, but I’ve only just managed to piece this information together, since it’s not exactly explicitly clear what the abortion laws in Canada were doing before about 1988). She was underdeveloped and I was born as an Extremely Low Birth-Weight preemie. I have cerebral palsy and lots of chronic health problems as a result.

    I’m still here. I’m quite accomplished — I have a Master’s degree and own my own business, but I also have lots of days where I just can’t get out of bed, and lots of other days where my body just ticks me off to no end. Let me say, suicide is not off the table, especially as I’m seeing at age thirty-mumble problems that normal adults don’t start seeing until they’re well into their forties and fifties.

    Besides all that, if you can’t imagine the sheer horror of knowing that your mother was actually forced to give birth to you, whether or not she really wanted to, you’re basically defective in the empathy department. I realise it’s probably not easy to conceptualise, but the actual situation is really grotesque.

90. Robert seemed to think that people whose mothers didn’t have abortions might be grateful that they didn’t.

    Yeah. Robert, if you come back, why are you so desperately afraid of your mother having had the right to abortion? Why would you want to force pregnancy on her? What’s your issue with mothers, anyways?

91. I’ve been out of town. It’s good to see I was missed. But now I have to go out again. I’ll try to catch up with what I missed here. One quick thing for ako: Why would I want to force my own pregnancy on my mother, if I somehow could? Why do you think?

92. Because you think women aren’t important, of course.

93. One quick thing for ako: Why would I want to force my own pregnancy on my mother, if I somehow could? Why do you think?

    Since you invited me to guess, I’d say it’s because you’re frightened at the prospect of her having a choice to have you or not, and don’t see any reason why she’d want to have you. That would explain the fear and mistrust you feel at the prospect of women not being forced to carry every embryo and fetus that implants.

94. She tried to take a pill that would kill the fetus

    Yes, and putting a substance into her body is tantamount to murder, especially when she didn’t consult the new sheriff in town. Jeez, I just hope she wasn’t recklessly exercising or lifting heavy objects, too! We need to investigate everyone who delivers a premature, stillborn or “imperfect” child and issue new guidelines for maternal behavior. Or just go with preventative detention.

    The baby didn’t die because of the pill, she didn’t use it to poison her in the hospital, she died because at only 23-26 weeks, she was incapable of living outside of Amber. What are you going to charge her with, “failure to give birth at the proper time”? “Reckless injesting”? “Being a slut who should have kept her legs crossed, cuz I really hate women”? “Failure to understand her body was no longer under her jurisdiction and act accordingly because the houseguest who refused to leave, declared the house was his and threatened her life had superior rights to it”? It’s just too bad she didn’t use a knitting needle, then at least that would have been a happy ending for you.

    Why would I want to force my own pregnancy on my mother, if I somehow could? Why do you think?

    Because if she hadn’t been forced, there’s no way in hell she’d have had you and she now feels horribly guilty about inflicting you upon the world? Took a shot.

95. Funny how pro-choice women are so often accused of being selfish because we want to be able to control how many children we have (if any) and when we have them (if ever), yet it’s our anti-choice little Robert here who can’t fathom a world where his mother would have had the choice to abort, because that means HE might not exist! That’s the height of selfishness.

96. I can’t believe this has come to “Robert, you’re selfish for being happy that your mother did not terminate your existence in the womb. It’s selfish that you want all fetuses to have the same opportunity to exist on earth that you have had.” Well call me selfish then.
    But if abortions were outlawed, all that would be asked of pregnant women is to carry the human life until it is born and then give it up for adoption. 9 months of pregnancy. And in the vast, vast majority of pregnancies the woman and the man consented to engage in the act that creates life with the knowledge that there is no way to certainly prevent the life from being created. Compare this to abortion today. Millions of humans denied the opportunity to experience an earthly existence, in which they could have expected to live 70+ years.

    So you have the right of a woman to end the life inside her because she does not want to experience 9 months of pregnancy vs. the right of the human fetus to be given every opportunity to experience life on earth, which is an opportunity every person on earth has been given without any decision or action of their own. Isn’t this basically what the argument boils down to? Which is more selfish?

    The pro-choice side usually responds with:
    1.) a fetus isn’t alive [of course it is] or
    2.) a fetus isn’t a human being [of course it is; if it’s alive but not human then what is it? A fetus is clearly a stage of human development, therefor it is human] or
    3.) a fetus is human but not in the same way as the mother so her wishes always trump the desires of the fetus [something is either human or it isn’t, and if it is human then it has a right to exist. If you think this is a good point for abortion rights then it is also a good point for infanticide] or
    4.) a fetus can’t desire to exist because it doesn’t know it exists [another good argument for infanticide] or
    5.) a fetus is just a clump of cells [every living thing can be described this way, except for the single-celled organisms]
    6.) a tumor is a clump of human cells, therefor alive, how come it’s okay to kill it? [comparing a fetus to a tumor makes almost no sense. Saying a tumor is alive is like saying a finger is alive or an eye is alive. Tumors and eyes and fingers don’t have sex with each other and produce fetal tumors, eyes, and fingers. They aren’t living beings like humans] or
    7.) you aren’t a woman and will never be pregnant so it doesn’t matter what you say. [something is either true or it isn’t no matter who is saying it]

97. zuzu Says:
    January 28th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
    Because you think women aren’t important, of course.

    If I didn’t think you were important then I wouldn’t have used a formatting button to point out that you are completely making things up now.

    Robert Says:
    January 26th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
    Women get abortions because they think it’s in their own best interest. That’s not meant to be a shot against women. If men could have kids then we would do the same thing. Probably in greater numbers than women.

98. 3.) a fetus is human but not in the same way as the mother so her wishes always trump the desires of the fetus [something is either human or it isn’t, and if it is human then it has a right to exist. If you think this is a good point for abortion rights then it is also a good point for infanticide] or

    Robert, even if a fetus is fully human in the same way as the mother, her wishes regarding medical procedures for her own body would still trump the desires of the fetus or its right to life. We do not legally require people to undergo a medical procedure even if it will sustain the life of another human being. Even if it will sustain the life of their own child, and they knew there was a good chance their child would be born with a condition that would likely require a relative to undergo a medical procedure.

    Look, if you required a bone marrow transplant to live, I wouldn’t consider it selfish of you to desire that bone marrow transplant. That desire wouldn’t give you the right to force someone else to give you a bone marrow transplant. Your right to your own life also wouldn’t give you the right to force someone else to give you a bone marrow transplant. Yes, the wishes of the other person regarding their own body always trumps the desires of the person who needs the life-sustaining medical procedure. Even if that medical procedure would only take one hour (as opposed to nine months) and almost certainly result in no permanent harm to the person who undergoes it (not almost certain with pregnancy). The inevitable consequence of a match refusing to donate bone marrow to someone who needs it to live is the death of the person who needs it to live, because the person is incapable of surviving without use of a match’s bone marrow. The inevitable consequence of a mother deciding not to continue a pregnancy is the death of the fetus, because the fetus is incapable of surviving without use of the mother’s womb. If we had the technology to extract a fetus and have it survive without use of the mother’s womb, that would be different. We do not, hence the inevitable consequence.

    This is not a good point for infanticide, because once the child is capable of surviving on its own (meaning without requiring use of the mother’s womb, not without requiring being fed, etc.), his/her right to life exists independent of anyone else’s body. Therefore, you cannot kill him/her, because her/his existence is not affecting your rights in your body. You can decide to relinquish custody so as not to physically care for the child. That is how you exercise your rights in your own body once a child is capable of surviving on its own (same definition as above). In every stage, you have the right to exercise control over your own body, and any choices you made previously do not deny you that right at any point in the future.

99. I can’t believe this has come to “Robert, you’re selfish for being happy that your mother did not terminate your existence in the womb. It’s selfish that you want all fetuses to have the same opportunity to exist on earth that you have had.” Well call me selfish then.

    Okay, I’d love to (again): You’re selfish. Robert, the question is not “Are you happy that your mother did not terminate your existence in the womb?” Am I happy that I exist? Yes. The question is “Would you have wanted your mother to have the choice between continuing her pregnancy or terminating it?” I don’t have to hesitate to answer that in the affirmative. My mother did have that choice when she was pregnant with me, but she did not when she was pregnant with my older sister. My mom was a little over seven months pregnant with my sister at the time Roe v. Wade was decided. Do I wish that my sister did not exist? As much as she irritates the hell out of me, no, I don’t wish that. But I do wish that my mother had had the option of abortion at the time. I have no idea what she would have decided to do, but I wish that she hadn’t felt that her only option when she became pregnant at 18 years old was to get married to my father and forgo college (since her parents disapproved of my father and refused to pay for her to go to college). And if she had had an abortion at 18, then that would most likely mean that I wouldn’t exist either, which would be fine by me, since, you know, I wouldn’t know that I don’t exist if I didn’t exist. I wish for my mother what I wish for every woman, including myself: That we all have the right to self-determination.

    Oh, and the way you casually dismiss the burden of nine months of pregnancy also makes you selfish.

100. The pro-choice side usually responds with:
     1.) a fetus isn’t alive [of course it is] or

     Of course it’s alive. That’s irrelevent.

     2.) a fetus isn’t a human being [of course it is; if it’s alive but not human then what is it? A fetus is clearly a stage of human development, therefor it is human] or

     Being human doesn’t make it a person. Regardless, this is also irrelevent.

     3.) a fetus is human but not in the same way as the mother so her wishes always trump the desires of the fetus [something is either human or it isn’t, and if it is human then it has a right to exist. If you think this is a good point for abortion rights then it is also a good point for infanticide] or

     Having a right ot exist does not imply the right to exist no matter the cost. If that were the case, anyone in need of an organ transplant could demand someone with healthy organs give one up. That’s clearly not how rights function. Further, infanticide is the killing of an entity that is completely independant of the woman. That is, contrary to what you might want to believe, not the same as when a fetus is killed during an abortion. Fetus = completely dependant upon the woman’s womb. Infant = no longer remotely connected to the womb.

     4.) a fetus can’t desire to exist because it doesn’t know it exists [another good argument for infanticide] or

     I’ve never seen anyone seriously suggest that the fact that a fetus can’t desire anything is grounds for abortion. It’s usually a response to the rather misguided pro-life argument that the fetus would desire life if given the choice.

     5.) a fetus is just a clump of cells [every living thing can be described this way, except for the single-celled organisms]

     Again, most pro-choicers don’t suggest that the fact that the fetus is just a clump of cells is what makes abortion a legitimate option- this is almost always in response to other arguments, and is not intended as a justifcation in and of itself.

     6.) a tumor is a clump of human cells, therefor alive, how come it’s okay to kill it? [comparing a fetus to a tumor makes almost no sense. Saying a tumor is alive is like saying a finger is alive or an eye is alive. Tumors and eyes and fingers don’t have sex with each other and produce fetal tumors, eyes, and fingers. They aren’t living beings like humans] or

     A tumor is alive. They’re not alive in the same way as a fully grown person, but, then, a fetus isn’t really alive in the same way as a fully developed person, either. And, again, responses to poorly thought-out pro-life arguments do not, in and of themselves, constitute pro-choice arguments, and it’s intellectually dishonest to suggest that they do.

     7.) you aren’t a woman and will never be pregnant so it doesn’t matter what you say. [something is either true or it isn’t no matter who is saying it]

     1. The truth-value of a given satement may depend on the speaker. “I am a man” is a true or false depending on the speaker.
     2. Nitpicking aside: The weight we give to certain issues does vary depending on the speaker. Women have a lot more invested in this discussion. Abortion is an issue that directly impacts them, since… you know… it’s their bodies.

     I love how you actually completely skip one of the most common arguments- No person has a right to the use of another person’s body, regardless of the circumstances. It’s the woman’s body, and, ultimately, her choice whether to share it.

     Isn’t this basically what the argument boils down to? Which is more selfish?

     No. It doesn’t matter how selfish the woman is being. I don’t care if woman is getting an abortion because she’s the most selfish person on the face onf the planet. Selfishness is not against the law. I think it’s pretty fucking selfish that some jerk CEO is making more in a year than the average worker will make in three decades, and yet we have thousands and thousands of children going without health care. And yet, I don’t see a lot of push to make that illegal. And, there, you’re talking about actual children with actual lives. So, yeah. I don’t think that it matters how selfish someone is or is not being.

     (for the record, I don’t think it’s selfish for a woman not to give birth to a fetus, anyway, but even if it were, it’s irrelevent)

101. Robert, you’re selfish for being happy that your mother did not terminate your existence in the womb.

     No, you’re selfish if you’ve thought through the consequences of your philosophy and seriously want to justify legally compelling women (like your mother, and any sisters, daughters, and wives you may have) to submit their womb to government-approved usage in order to satisfy your existential dread.

     Being glad you’re alive isn’t selfish. Thinking that your happiness in existing would justify taking away your mother’s or any woman’s bodily integrity is practically the definition of selfish.

     It’s selfish that you want all fetuses to have the same opportunity to exist on earth that you have had.

     It’s selfish to not only want this, but decide to enforce this on women’s bodies, especially since your scenario sees the woman suffering enforced gestation and the attendant health risk for every bad decision or contraceptive failure (and also rape?), the fetuses get nine months gestation then life as an unwanted baby, either in the overcrowded orphanages that result from no legalized abortion or with an unwilling mother, and you get to sit around telling people what to do and feeling proud of how “righteous” and “virtuous” you are.

102. Lesley Says:
     January 29th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
     Robert, even if a fetus is fully human in the same way as the mother, her wishes regarding medical procedures for her own body would still trump the desires of the fetus or its right to life.

     If you admit that a fetus is fully human in the same way as the mother then I don’t see how you come to that conclusion, because the medical procedure in question results in killing the human fetus! Killing a person because you don’t want to go through 9 months of pregnancy? I can’t believe that you would say “yeah, a human fetus is human in the same way I am, but there’s nothing wrong with killing it just so its mother doesn’t have to experience 9 months of pregnancy.” And I’m the selfish one?

     Look, if you required a bone marrow transplant to live, I wouldn’t consider it selfish of you to desire that bone marrow transplant. That desire wouldn’t give you the right to force someone else to give you a bone marrow transplant. Your right to your own life also wouldn’t give you the right to force someone else to give you a bone marrow transplant. Yes, the wishes of the other person regarding their own body always trumps the desires of the person who needs the life-sustaining medical procedure. Even if that medical procedure would only take one hour (as opposed to nine months) and almost certainly result in no permanent harm to the person who undergoes it (not almost certain with pregnancy).

     If you accept that a fetus is fully human in the same way as the mother then the wishes of the fetus regarding its own body always trumps the desires of the mother who is requesting a medical procedure that is not neccessary to her own life. The difference between your bone marrow example and giving birth is that in your example a person is required to go through with a medical procedure to sustain the life of another person. Giving birth requires not going through with a medical procedure (abortion). Unless giving birth is considered a “medical procedure”, which I’m not sure about. But even if it is, you have a situation where one medical procedure will result in 2 lives (mother, child) and no deaths while the other medical procedure results in 1 life (mother) and 1 death (child). Going through pregnancy might be worse then going through an abortion, but the rights of the human life in question outweigh the difference. So, if giving birth is a medical procedure, the bone marrow example is not similar because in it a scenario where no medical procedure takes place is possible, while in pregnancy a medical procedure must take place, abortion or birth, excluding an accidental miscarriage.

     This is not a good point for infanticide, because once the child is capable of surviving on its own (meaning without requiring use of the mother’s womb, not without requiring being fed, etc.),

     An infant is not capable of surviving on its own without another human. If a fetus is considered not as human as its mother because it needs another human to survive, then the same thing could be said about an infant. In needs another human. Not for a womb, but for food nevertheless.

103. ^ I messed up and reversed the quotes and my words, sorry.

104. I love how you actually completely skip one of the most common arguments- No person has a right to the use of another person’s body, regardless of the circumstances. It’s the woman’s body, and, ultimately, her choice whether to share it

     The mother has the right to the use of another person’s body when she kills the fetus. But you also said that being human doesn’t make the fetus a person. I’ve never heard someone say that something is human but not a person. “I killed a human, but I did not kill a person”. I don’t see how that could ever be the case.

105. because the medical procedure in question results in killing the human fetus!

     No, the medical procedure I was referring to was the pregnancy itself. Not the abortion. The abortion is how you refuse to continue a pregnancy. There just isn’t another way given our current state of technology, since we cannot sustain a fetus outside of its mother’s womb. If there were, this would be an entirely different conversation. As I said, refusing to give a bone marrow transplant (i.e., using your body via your bone marrow) to sustain the life of another will result in their death. Refusing to continue a pregnancy (i.e., using your body via your womb) to sustain the life of another will result in their death. Either way, a death is the inevitable consequence.

     Basically, you are giving a fetus more legal rights than you have. In other words, it’s perfectly fine if I “kill” you through refusing to use my bone marrow to sustain your life, but not if I “kill” a fetus through refusing to use my womb to sustain its life. See, either way, my decision results in the death of another. The absence of an additional medical procedure doesn’t change the end result. You seem to think that consenting to undergo an abortion derives from an intent to kill, rather than an intent to refuse to use your body. I’m sorry, but in both the pregnancy and bone marrow transplant cases, the intent is precisely the same – a refusal to use your body. The mechanism of how that happens does not change the intent. I’m sorry if you’re uncomfortable with the way in which the death is ultimately caused, but that isn’t a real distinction. It’s just your discomfort. (BTW, intent is a very big deciding factor in the law.)

     If you accept that a fetus is fully human in the same way as the mother then the wishes of the fetus regarding its own body always trumps the desires of the mother who is requesting a medical procedure that is not neccessary to her own life.

     No. No more than your wishes regarding your own body trump my desire to refuse to give you a bone marrow transplant, which is a medical procedure that is not necessary to my own life. Bone marrow transplants are not particularly risky for the donor. They’re actually a lot simpler and less dangerous than a pregnancy.

     If a fetus is considered not as human as its mother because it needs another human to survive, then the same thing could be said about an infant. In needs another human. Not for a womb, but for food nevertheless.

     Yeah, see, that’s why I added that bit at the end. The one you totally ignored? The one about relinquishing custody? Obviously if there’s any way you can refuse to use your body that doesn’t result in the death of another, that’s the morally right thing to do. Lord, that isn’t ethically complex, and no one here would dispute it as a general principle. If you decide to keep custody of the baby, you have agreed to use your body to sustain that baby. Therefore, an intentional refusal to feed it would be an intent to kill, not just an intent to refuse to use your body. That is completely different from a refusal to give a bone marrow transplant or a refusal to continue a pregnancy, in which you have not agreed to use your body to sustain the other. Although, again, a later decision to relinquish custody of the baby so as not to have to care for it is not precluded by your earlier decision to keep custody. It’s just that you have to relinquish custody to someone else or the state, not simply stop caring for the baby without making other provisions.

     BTW, I haven’t said whether or not I think a fetus is fully human just like the mother. I don’t consider it relevant to a discussion about abortion, because either way, the mother’s right to decide what to do with her own body trumps. I will say that I don’t think a fetus is a “person” as defined in the Constitution. However, as you appear to be arguing from a natural rights perspective, rather than a Constitutional perspective, I don’t think the Constitutional definition applies.

106. But if abortions were outlawed, all that would be asked of pregnant women is to carry the human life until it is born and then give it up for adoption.

     Oh, is that all? Pfft, easy-peasy.

107. The mother has the right to the use of another person’s body when she kills the fetus. But you also said that being human doesn’t make the fetus a person. I’ve never heard someone say that something is human but not a person. “I killed a human, but I did not kill a person”. I don’t see how that could ever be the case.

     The mother isn’t using the fetus’ body, regardless of whether she kills it or not. That doesn’t even make sense.

     Let’s spell it out as clearly as possible, okay?

     There is a woman.
     There is a fetus inside of her womb.
     Her womb is a part of her body.
     The fetus needs the womb to survive.
     Thus, the fetus is using they woman’s body for survival.
     If the fetus is unwanted, then, essentially, it is intruding on her body.

     In no other circumstance do we say “I’m sorry if there’s another organism intruding on your body that you don’t want there, but that organism has a right to life that we don’t want to intrude upon, regardless of your right to control your body.”

     We don’t even do that in cases like organ or blood donations would save multiple lives.

     People are not required to share their bodies. They’re not required to share them with other people, and they’re not required to share them with other organisms. Whether the fetus is a person (which is a moral status, not a biological status) is irrelevent, because it doesn’t make a difference either way.

     The fetus’ alledged “right to life” does not give it rights upon the woman’s womb anymore than my right to life gives me rights to one of your kidneys.

     As far as the person/human thing, person is a moral/legal status, not a biological status. There are tons of people who would deny that the fetus is a person, and who would point out that it’s possible for there to be non-human people. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter, because no other group of people have the rights you’re attempting to give fetuses, anyway.

108. An infant is not capable of surviving on its own without another human

     Humans are born remarkably immature for placental mammals, but they are not marsupials. A human infant can be cared for by any competent adult or semi-adult who is willing to care for it. It does not use the resources of a specific other person unless that person permits it. Comparing that to a fetus which is, technically, parasitizing a person’s physical resources, is like comparing voluntary blood donation with legally forcing people to donate one of their kidneys.

     Incidently, are you actually going to make an argument to explain why, for example, you consider a fertilized egg a person but not an unfertilized egg (or sperm) when both are living, human, and capable–under the right circumstances–of becoming (part of) a baby or just say “that’s absurd” and hope everyone takes your word for it?

109. But if abortions were outlawed, all that would be asked of pregnant women is to carry the human life until it is born and then give it up for adoption.

     Pop quiz: Which would be more dangerous: Booking a flight scheduled to depart 9/11/01 or completing a pregnancy? Anyone who doesn’t know that this is a trick question enroll in remedial irony now. But it’s true: I once (while pregnant) did the calculation and completing a pregnancy is 1/2 to 1 order of magnitude more dangerous than planning to fly on 9/11/01 would have been.

110. A fetus has no right to use the womb of its mother. I don’t want to have to respond to every point so I’m hoping that’s basically what everybody’s saying. Some have said that human life begins after the fetus stage, some have said the fetus is not human, and some have said that a fetus is human but not a person. But it appears that everyone here would agree with the first sentence. The human life inside of the mother has no rights. (Do you agree with the word “mother” in that context, or is “pregnant woman” preferred?) I say that the phrase “inside the mother” is not as important in that sentence as you think. What other phrase could you put in its place that would be true today? “The human life _______ has no rights.” There is no other word or phrase, even for murderers and rapists. So, I’m not trying to give a fetus greater rights than all other groups of humans, I’m trying to give them the same rights as all other groups of humans. The fact that these rights come at the expense of the government taking control of the mother’s womb is not enough to outweigh the right of any group of humans to, in fact, have any rights at all.

111. So, I’m not trying to give a fetus greater rights than all other groups of humans, I’m trying to give them the same rights as all other groups of humans. The fact that these rights come at the expense of the government taking control of the mother’s womb is not enough to outweigh the right of any group of humans to, in fact, have any rights at all.

     Did you forget about the fleshy bit surrounding the womb? That’s called a woman, and she has rights.

112. Incidently, are you actually going to make an argument to explain why, for example, you consider a fertilized egg a person but not an unfertilized egg (or sperm) when both are living, human, and capable–under the right circumstances–of becoming (part of) a baby or just say “that’s absurd” and hope everyone takes your word for it?

     A fertilized egg will go through all the human development stages, all the way to adult. Sperm alone and unfertilized eggs will not. That is why they are alive, but not human beings. When they combine they create a human life and the development begins. Ending the human life at any point after this is killing a human being. You can justify it however you wish, but it remains true.

113. Did you forget about the fleshy bit surrounding the womb? That’s called a woman, and she has rights.

     She certainly does. It’s illegal to kill her too.

114. No, Robert. No one gets to have any given right if the only way they can exercise that right is by forcing someone else to relinquish theirs. You have the right to vote, but if the only way you can exercise it is to steal someone’s car to drive to the polling place, you don’t get to exercise that right. Absolutely you are giving a fetus a greater right than a person. You’re giving it the right to force a person to relinquish her rights. No one has that right. And it would not be the government taking control of the woman’s womb. It would be the fetus. The government would simply be the enforcement mechanism.

     Besides, what rights do you think the fetus has? The rights to bear arms? The right to an attorney if it’s charged with a crime? Come on. You may consider a fetus to be a person*, but you cannot really claim that there is effectively no difference.

     *And under the law, the fetus is not a person. As zuzu has previously said, go try and claim a fetus as a tax deduction. See how far that gets you. You can claim an infant, yes. But if you don’t give birth until January, you don’t get to claim the fetus as a tax deduction in the prior year.

115. A fertilized egg will go through all the human development stages, all the way to adult. Sperm alone and unfertilized eggs will not. That is why they are alive, but not human beings.

     What sort of cells are they if not human? Are they rhinoceros cells until they are fertilized and then magically transform to human? An unfertilized gamete only needs a very small–trivial even–step to get it to the same stage in the process of becoming a person as the fertilized egg is. Why should fertilization be the “sacred” step as opposed to second meiotic division or implantation or birth?

116. Oh hell, I can see where my previous comment is going to lead. Let me cut that off. The mother’s rights to her body trump any right the fetus might have because the fetus is using the mother’s body. The mother is not using the fetus’ “body”. No one has the right to use someone else against their will to exercise their rights. Giving the fetus the right to use the mother’s womb against her will would be giving the fetus rights no person has to force anyone else to relinquish their rights.

117. Change “fetus” to “tapeworm” and see if that analysis that the mother is using the fetus’ body still works out.

118. What sort of cells are they if not human? Are they rhinoceros cells until they are fertilized and then magically transform to human? An unfertilized gamete only needs a very small–trivial even–step to get it to the same stage in the process of becoming a person as the fertilized egg is. Why should fertilization be the “sacred” step as opposed to second meiotic division or implantation or birth?

     Of course they are human cells. They aren’t human beings because they won’t develop into adulthhood. The sperm meeting the egg is the “sacred step” because it is at that stage that the process of fertilized, single celled egg to human adult begins.

119. If a fertilized egg is a person then we have a much bigger public health problem on our hands than abortion: miscarriage. Somewhere between 50 and 80% of fertilized eggs fail to implant or die before the pregnancy becomes “clinically apparent” (based on studies using high sensitivity HGC testing–so the numbers are probably low.) So, why the lack of interest in finding out–and curing–the condition or conditions that is/are killing the vast majority of “babies” so young? Why no private foundations funding grants to study the problem? Why no public awareness campaigns? Why no demands that the NIH reprioratize its funding to deal with this pandemic?

120. The sperm meeting the egg is the “sacred step” because it is at that stage that the process of fertilized, single celled egg to human adult begins.

     Circular argument. The process could as easily be said to begin when the oocyte “decides” (by whatever process that occurs) to undergo the second meiotic division and become an egg rather than undergoing apoptosis. Then all it needs to do is meet a sperm, undergo all the steps of fertilization properly, implant, develop without error, and be born. Any one of those steps can go wrong, of course–the sperm can be missing, the complex act of fertilization can fail in any number of ways, implantation can–and usually does–fail, development can go wrong and the embryo can turn into a cancer, twinning can occur, delivery can occur before the fetus is developed enough to live, the mother can die of eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, diabetic ketoacidosis, uterine rupture, or any number of other complications of pregnancy, the umbilical cord can strangle the fetus during delivery, etc. Oh, and there’s a chance that the mother can decide to have an abortion. Just one of a long list of possible reasons why the fertilized egg might not develop into a person.

121. Oh, and there’s a chance that the mother can decide to have an abortion. Just one of a long list of possible reasons why the fertilized egg might not develop into a person.

     And the only one that involves a human decision to end human life and not random, unfortunate human death.

122. If a fertilized egg is a person then we have a much bigger public health problem on our hands than abortion: miscarriage. Somewhere between 50 and 80% of fertilized eggs fail to implant or die before the pregnancy becomes “clinically apparent” (based on studies using high sensitivity HGC testing–so the numbers are probably low.) So, why the lack of interest in finding out–and curing–the condition or conditions that is/are killing the vast majority of “babies” so young? Why no private foundations funding grants to study the problem? Why no public awareness campaigns? Why no demands that the NIH reprioratize its funding to deal with this pandemic?

     To all questions: I don’t know. Perhaps because none of those means of human death involve human decision.

123. Change “fetus” to “tapeworm” and see if that analysis that the mother is using the fetus’ body still works out.

     It wouldn’t because a tapeworm will not develop into an adult human, and is therefor not human.

124. Giving the fetus the right to use the mother’s womb against her will would be giving the fetus rights no person has to force anyone else to relinquish their rights

     Maybe the situation is that the human fetus either has no rights, which no other group of humans is without, or it has more rights than any other group of humans. I admit that it might be one or the other. Do we not give children more protections under the law than adults? Why not extend this to unborn children? Because of the mother’s womb rights? These are trumped by the fetuses right to exist and develop.

125. Because of the mother’s womb rights? These are trumped by the fetuses right to exist and develop.

     No, because of the mother’s human rights. You keep discussing the womb as if it’s separate from that fleshy thing surrounding it.

     Not that any of this seems to get through to you, but if the child after birth developed a disease and absolutely needed a kidney transplant to survive, and the mother was the only possible match, that child has no right to force the mother to give it her kidney. Why do you continue to privilege a fetus over a child with kidney disease?

126. So, I’m not trying to give a fetus greater rights than all other groups of humans, I’m trying to give them the same rights as all other groups of humans. The fact that these rights come at the expense of the government taking control of the mother’s womb is not enough to outweigh the right of any group of humans to, in fact, have any rights at all.

     Robert: If you honestly try to give a fetus the “same rights as all other groups of humans,” you will have to admit that they do not, in fact, have the right to use a woman’s body for 9 months. And please don’t be flippant about what 9 months of pregnancy might look like. If you can’t be bothered to go through a one-day surgery to donate one of your kidneys, then you’re being blatantly hypocritical in calling women “selfish” who choose abortion.

     As to the second part of the quoted content: What sort of “rights” would we have if the right to our bodily integrity is up for grabs? What is the government going to do, place me under supervised care for 9 months so I don’t do anything to disrupt an unwanted pregnancy?

127. Not that any of this seems to get through to you, but if the child after birth developed a disease and absolutely needed a kidney transplant to survive, and the mother was the only possible match, that child has no right to force the mother to give it her kidney. Why do you continue to privilege a fetus over a child with kidney disease?

     Once a woman is impregnated no other medical procedure is required until the child is born. Only a lack of a medical procedure (abortion) is required for the human fetus to continue to live. The kidney transplant/bone marrow transplant/any other kind of example like this anyone wants to throw out— is different because in this situation a medical procedure IS required of the parent, and is therefor intrusive against the parent’s body. Requiring a medical procedure is obviously more intrusive than outlawing a medical procedure.

128. No, because of the mother’s human rights. You keep discussing the womb as if it’s separate from that fleshy thing surrounding it.

     The womb and the mother are inseparable, which is why it is neccessary to weigh the human rights of each human being. This gives us the fetus’s right to exist vs. the mother’s right to not have to go through an unwanted pregnancy for 9 months. The scales tip decidedly to one side.

129. Once a woman is impregnated no other medical procedure is required until the child is born. Only a lack of a medical procedure (abortion) is required for the human fetus to continue to live. The kidney transplant/bone marrow transplant/any other kind of example like this anyone wants to throw out— is different because in this situation a medical procedure IS required of the parent, and is therefor intrusive against the parent’s body. Requiring a medical procedure is obviously more intrusive than outlawing a medical procedure.

     What?!

     I don’t follow. How, exactly, is pregnancy less intrusive than a surgery? What about the fact that 25% of deliveries are now by C-section in the U.S.? What could possibly be more invasive than literally having a fetus grow inside your body?

     I throw my hands up.

130. robert, pregnancy ITSELF is intrusive. this is the point people are trying to make. what with the leaching of calcium from the woman’s bones, the usurping of nutrients and of oxygen, the rerouting of blood vessels, the hormonal changes, the physical changes, the malaise and fatigue and weight gain and fluid retention and puking — and that’s just in your average run-of-the-mill non-life-threatening-type pregnancy, and that’s just the bodily discomfort the woman must endure. it leaves aside all the social and financial and familial burdens placed upon the woman-shaped fetus-cozy in question.

131. Robert: If you honestly try to give a fetus the “same rights as all other groups of humans,” you will have to admit that they do not, in fact, have the right to use a woman’s body for 9 months. And please don’t be flippant about what 9 months of pregnancy might look like. If you can’t be bothered to go through a one-day surgery to donate one of your kidneys, then you’re being blatantly hypocritical in calling women “selfish” who choose abortion.

     No other group of humans has the right to use a woman’s body for 9 months. But no other group of humans needs this right to maintain its life, and after 9 months, it won’t. And I don’t mean to be flippant, this is just the way human existence is sustained. Having a kidney removed is intrusive. Not having one removed is not. The similarites to abortion are obvious.

     As to the second part of the quoted content: What sort of “rights” would we have if the right to our bodily integrity is up for grabs? What is the government going to do, place me under supervised care for 9 months so I don’t do anything to disrupt an unwanted pregnancy?

     That won’t be neccessary. And, many laws govern the use of our bodies.

132. What could possibly be more invasive than literally having a fetus grow inside your body?

     I throw my hands up.

     Again, we are talking about a human life that as a right to exist. That fetus that is growing is a developing human being that has every right to experience life on earth, just as we are doing.

133. robert, pregnancy ITSELF is intrusive. this is the point people are trying to make. what with the leaching of calcium from the woman’s bones, the usurping of nutrients and of oxygen, the rerouting of blood vessels, the hormonal changes, the physical changes, the malaise and fatigue and weight gain and fluid retention and puking — and that’s just in your average run-of-the-mill non-life-threatening-type pregnancy, and that’s just the bodily discomfort the woman must endure. it leaves aside all the social and financial and familial burdens placed upon the woman-shaped fetus-cozy in question.

     All of these inconveniences are trumped by a human being’s right to exist.

134. All of these inconveniences are trumped by a human being’s right to exist.

     but only in the case of pregnancy, right? the fetus is entitled to leach calcium from its mother’s bones while it’s in the womb, but not entitled to a life-saving transplant of its mother’s bone marrow once it’s outside the womb? are you seriously not seeing any kind of contradiction whatsoever at all here?

135. No other group of humans has the right to use a woman’s body for 9 months. But no other group of humans needs this right to maintain its life, and after 9 months, it won’t. And I don’t mean to be flippant, this is just the way human existence is sustained. Having a kidney removed is intrusive. Not having one removed is not. The similarites to abortion are obvious.

     There are groups of humans that need to use others’ bodies to survive, and we don’t allow them to do so (those who need organ transplants, for instance). And just because human existence requires that we reproduce (duh) doesn’t mean that we get to force every woman who becomes pregnant (for whatever reason) to have a child. Last I checked, human kind is in more danger of overpopulating the earth than of dying off.

     OK: your claim that having a kidney removed is intrusive in the same way as an abortion? So very not obvious. Having an abortion = less intrusive than growing a fetus in your body for 9 months and going through labor.

     That fetus that is growing is a developing human being that has every right to experience life on earth, just as we are doing.

     A fetus has no such right to develop using my body if I don’t want to use my body to support it. What right did any of us have before we were born to experience life on earth? You seem to overlook the fact that many women have an abortion because they already have as many children as they want (or can support), or because they want to delay childbearing (as in, finish school, have a secure relationship, etc.). So really, by advocating that every fetus has the right to use a woman’s body, you’re actually often denying other children the chance to exist (as in the case when a woman has an abortion at 18, but later has the one children she always planned to have at, say, age 25).

136. Robert, here’s the point of this whole thing.

     Pro-lifeness has nothing to do with when life begins, the sanctity of life, or how much we wuv the widdle baybees. Yes, ‘when does life begin? what is a soul,’ etc are very important questions to ask, and there have been people who have been trying to figure that out — but the fact of the matter is that we DON’T know.

     So in light of this fact, pro-lifeness has more to do with trampling on women than anything else. This is why I do not approach the abortion issue in a ‘when does life begin but what about that beautiful babyyyy’ angle, because pro-lifers don’t, either. Notice your comment, ‘if she didn’t want that baby, she should’ve kept her legs closed.’ Misogyny, right there. Pro-lifers do not make it easier for women to not become pregnant by making birth control more accessible or offering education — they make it more difficult, actually. The pro-life thing is just slut-shaming, plain and simple. *That* is why I refuse to go in this rambling on about the sanctity of life, because the pro-life position isn’t coming from there, either.

     So unless you personally have unravelled the secret of what the soul is and when life begins when no other great mind of the past several centuries has been able to, I think you should seriously quit trying to play the ‘but liiiiiiife!’ schtick.

137. but only in the case of pregnancy, right? the fetus is entitled to leach calcium from its mother’s bones while it’s in the womb, but not entitled to a life-saving transplant of its mother’s bone marrow once it’s outside the womb? are you seriously not seeing any kind of contradiction whatsoever at all here?

     I don’t know what kind of parent would deny a bone marrow transplant to his/her child. But from an entitlement standpoint, a bone marrow transplant is a procedure that requires a surgeon, while not aborting a child is a non-procedure that requires no surgeon, and giving birth is a natural, human-race sustaining process that usually requires no surgeon.

138. a bone marrow transplant is a procedure that requires a surgeon, while not aborting a child is a non-procedure that requires no surgeon, and giving birth is a natural, human-race sustaining process that usually requires no surgeon.

     How is the necessity of a surgeon for an event in any way a determinant of whether or not it should be either legally or ethically viable as a choice?

139. Last I checked, human kind is in more danger of overpopulating the earth than of dying off.

     There is no danger of world-wide over population. There is enough food on earth to feed everyone multiple times over. The reason some people starve is because of evil, greedy people. There is localized over population, such as the country of Bangladesh, but on a global scale there is enough food and resources for billions more people. This is a pro-abortion argument that is simply a lie. It comes from abortion rights and environmental rights extemists. Don’t believe it.

140. birth itself is considered a medical procedure, robert. those lucky enough to have health insurance find that it’s covered just like any other medical procedure. the issue here shouldn’t be whether someone in a white coat happens to be standing in the room while the invasive occurance happens. pregnancy and birth are MORE invasive and MORE painful than donating marrow. that’s the POINT.

     robert, let’s say that you and i find ourselves the sole survivors of a plane crash, stranded on a desert island with little hope of rescue. do i get to eat you to survive? even just, say, one of your limbs? it wouldn’t kill you, after all, and it’s not like i’d be surgically removing anything. i’d just use teeth. what is more natural or life-sustaining than eating?

141. There is no danger of world-wide over population. There is enough food on earth to feed everyone multiple times over. The reason some people starve is because of evil, greedy people. There is localized over population, such as the country of Bangladesh, but on a global scale there is enough food and resources for billions more people. This is a pro-abortion argument that is simply a lie. It comes from abortion rights and environmental rights extemists. Don’t believe it.

     I usually wouldn’t answer to this sort of shit, but if it’s so untrue, cite something that isn’t blatantly slanted that actually backs this up. It’s quite the claim to make, you know.

142. So in light of this fact, pro-lifeness has more to do with trampling on women than anything else. This is why I do not approach the abortion issue in a ‘when does life begin but what about that beautiful babyyyy’ angle, because pro-lifers don’t, either. Notice your comment, ‘if she didn’t want that baby, she should’ve kept her legs closed.’ Misogyny, right there. Pro-lifers do not make it easier for women to not become pregnant by making birth control more accessible or offering education — they make it more difficult, actually. The pro-life thing is just slut-shaming, plain and simple. *That* is why I refuse to go in this rambling on about the sanctity of life, because the pro-life position isn’t coming from there, either.

     I said that “sometimes keeping your legs closed, i.e. don’t have sex, is good advise for a man or a woman.” I am not a mysogynist. I said that men would have more abortions than women if men could get pregnant. I have no doubt that this is true.

143. I usually wouldn’t answer to this sort of shit, but if it’s so untrue, cite something that isn’t blatantly slanted that actually backs this up. It’s quite the claim to make, you know.

     Why is it quite the claim to make? The earth has yet to be over populated, so the burden of proof lies on you. You tell me why the earth is over populated/over populating.

144. I said that men would have more abortions than women if men could get pregnant. I have no doubt that this is true.

     oh, that’s right, cos women are the fuzzy lovey nurturey ones designed by god to desire a life devoted solely to babymaking. nope, you don’t have any of those awful sexist preconceptions at all.

145. Does anybody else think it’s a little odd that this debate w/ Robert is occuring in response to a post talking about cytotec?

     It seems to me that for anti-abortion United States residents – their ideological interest in abortion revolves around the legal definitions of abortion as defined in the U.S.

     But they tend to ignore the actual practices of women in countries where abortion is a criminal act. (Places where cytotec is commonly used, ect.)

     I don’t have a huge point here, but it just struck me as odd that Robert can ignore the fact that cytotec is widely used in states that outlaw abortion. (Or if not ignoring it — he’s far more interesting in arguing about abstract legal definitions of “rights” rather then the actual practices of women around the world.)

146. There is no danger of world-wide over population. There is enough food on earth to feed everyone multiple times over. The reason some people starve is because of evil, greedy people. There is localized over population, such as the country of Bangladesh, but on a global scale there is enough food and resources for billions more people. This is a pro-abortion argument that is simply a lie. It comes from abortion rights and environmental rights extemists. Don’t believe it.

     Obviously I don’t want to be the next Malthus. However, I’m not sure where you’re getting your evidence for the claim that we aren’t in any danger of overpopulation. How exactly would you know? Considering that overpopulation has much less to do with how much food we could possibly grow (in your utopian claims, enough for “billions more people”), and much more with how the system already in place would distribute wealth and resources. The greatest threat to the environment is the demand we put on our resources: more people = more demands. This isn’t some environmental conspiracy. And while we’re on it, I don’t see what’s so scary to right-wingers about a sustained, steady population: why must we be always growing?! What’s wrong with 6 billion people? What was wrong with 3 billion?

     Anyway, all of this is besides the point. The point is, no woman should have to go through a pregnancy that she wants to end.

147. How is the necessity of a surgeon for an event in any way a determinant of whether or not it should be either legally or ethically viable as a choice?

     I’m disputing the comparison of child-birth to a bone marrow transplant.

148. (Or if not ignoring it — he’s far more interesting in arguing about abstract legal definitions of “rights” rather then the actual practices of women around the world.)

     Rights are more important than practices. Slavery, for example. Also the female vote.

149. you maybe wanna back up that declarative with some reasoning, there, robert?

150. I’m disputing the comparison of child-birth to a bone marrow transplant.

     Yes, but in such a way that you put more weight on the presence of a surgeon than on the physical/emotiona/financial impacts of both. No analogy is going to be perfect, but I don’t see how the ethical/legal ramifications should be so entirely opposed in the two cases.

151. Rights are more important than practices. Slavery, for example. Also the female vote.

     huh? “Practices” — as in the actual actions that people do in their everyday life. (For example, a lot of women use cytotec –and they use it widely in Latin and S. America. It’s what the post is about.)

     Slavery a group of practices that we can call a social and legal institution.

     Voting is a practice — something one does on a particular day.

     Rights are abstract — part of a ideology/ belief system, ect.

     You don’t seem to want to deal with the fact that women use cytotec. You don’t seem interested in that fact.

152. You don’t seem to want to deal with the fact that women use cytotec. You don’t seem interested in that fact.

     We got pretty far off from that. Is that the drug the woman from the article took? If so, we addressed this way in the beginning.

153. First of all, I made no claims about whether the earth is overpopulating or not. I don’t fancy myself someone who would know this sort of thing.

     I said that “sometimes keeping your legs closed, i.e. don’t have sex, is good advise for a man or a woman.” I am not a mysogynist. I said that men would have more abortions than women if men could get pregnant. I have no doubt that this is true

     That is not what you said.

     And she had an abortion before! Goodness, maybe she should consider keeping her legs closed for awhile.

     Yeah blah blah it’s online and you ‘can’t read tone,’ but if someone can’t read the tone of *venom* towards the fact that this woman dared to have sex, then I think they need their head checked. That was not just friendly advice, that was slut-shaming. You do know what that is, right?

154. you maybe wanna back up that declarative with some reasoning, there, robert?

     The rights vs. practices statement? Practices change; rights, as in fundamental truths, don’t.

155. And I’m not even going to go into ‘I’m not a misogynist!!!1’ Someone else can do it if they feel like it.

156. no, i meant this statement:

     I’m disputing the comparison of child-birth to a bone marrow transplant.

     also, you still haven’t said whether or not i can gnaw off your leg.

157. Robert, you totally ignored the part of my comment where I said that because we have no idea when life begins or what a soul is, that very little — if any part — of the pro-life/pro-choice shit actually has to do with ‘the miracle of lyyyyfe!’ Apparently, you seem to not ONLY know when life begins and what a soul is when no-one else has figured it out yet — you, without question, nor source, nor explanation, know all the ‘fundamental truths’!

     Amazing. Someone give this man a Nobel Prize!

158. First of all, I made no claims about whether the earth is overpopulating or not. I don’t fancy myself someone who would know this sort of thing.

     Then why did you call me out for proof? And I have never used “slut-shaming” as an anti-choice argument. The “legs closed” statement is not slut-shaming. I’m saying that sex is the act of creating life, so don’t be surprised if that’s what happens, whether you’re male or female. If you can’t handle the risk of life-creation, then you aren’t mature enough for the act, plain and simple.

159. kidlacan, you can gnaw off my leg anytime. ;D

     sorry, I had to say something like that… 😛

160. Um…keep in mind that I have to read and analyze pretty much every sentence on this thread, since it’s basically me vs. everybody else, and I’m trying to do other things. I’m sorry if I don’t get to a particular sentence in your particular comment.

161. The rights vs. practices statement? Practices change; rights, as in fundamental truths, don’t.

     Well, some practices don’t change. (Women get pregnant. Ultimately, women make decisions about their pregnancies — what to eat; whether they should take folic acid; how to manage their pregnancies; ect.)

     I think it is interesting that you want to debate a abstract rights argument while ignoring the practical use of cytotec. For anti-abortionists – I wonder why their attention is not directed at practical ways to lower the abortion rate around the world.

     For example, if birth control was cheaper in Latin and South America, less women would use cytotec. The large use of cytotec demonstrates that women will have abortions irrespective of the legal or illegallity definitions of their actions. But anti-abortion people don’t seem much interested in say, giving out free condoms to people — even married couples, and thus limiting the need to use cytotec. I have never understood that turn away from the actual practices of women.

162. kidlacan, you can gnaw off my leg anytime. ;D

     sorry, I had to say something like that… 😛

     I just ignored that comment. We don’t need to get into strange analogies. Abortion is like me asking to gnaw your leg off…

163. For anti-abortionists – I wonder why their attention is not directed at practical ways to lower the abortion rate around the world.

     I don’t know, this hasn’t been brought up here. We’ve been talking about natural law and abortion, it seems. I wouldn’t disagree with any of your suggestions, though. But I don’t want to use condoms when I’m married.

164. And I’m not even going to go into ‘I’m not a misogynist!!!1′ Someone else can do it if they feel like it.

     Not every anti-choice male is a misogynist. Some are, I grant you that. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not, and all of my comments back this up. You can say, “You said she should have kept her legs shut!” all you want but that doesn’t make me a misogynist. Given the outcome, she should have, and the man as well.

165. Practices change; rights, as in fundamental truths, don’t.

     Um, a “fundamental truth?” Certainly, you have some evidence to back up that statement? “Truth” usually has substance to it.

     “Fundamental truth” will differ greatly among people, by the way. Some of us prefer rational decisions based on evidence. Some of us prefer fundamentalist dogma or fanatical ideology.

166. Why is it quite the claim to make? The earth has yet to be over populated, so the burden of proof lies on you. You tell me why the earth is over populated/over populating.

     Funny, it’s perfectly OK for you to make a claim without evidence.

167. All of these inconveniences are trumped by a human being’s right to exist.

     Robert, this has to be the most ignorant statement I’ve seen on this blog today. I guess pregnancy and raising a child is just a cakewalk for most women, right?

     What about the woman’s right to exist? She automatically has to give up all her rights when she gets pregnant? You do know that pregnancy is much more dangerous than abortion, right? Just think of women in poor countries who have no access to birth control and medical help. I’m sure watching 10 of your 13 children die is just SO wonderful!

     Fact: 0.6 out of 100,000 abortions result in death while 13 out of 100,000 live births result in death.
     (link)

     Please explain to me how a potential life can have the full rights of a grown woman. A fetus cannot survive outside a woman. Until it can, it is a part of the woman’s body. Therefore, she has the right to decide what will become of the potential life. A fetus has NO right to be inside a woman – it is the woman who gives that right to the fetus, because it is HER body. A fetus doesn’t have a “natural” right to live inside a woman against her decision. It is morally wrong to tell a woman she must be forced to carry a fetus she does not want to carry to term. Bringing a child into a world that cannot support it either emotionally or economically is morally wrong. We all pay the price for unwanted individuals. Society is much better off with legal abortion.

     I have a friend who got pregnant. She was in a failing relationship also. She decided to have an abortion. She spent hours waiting for her appointment to terminate her pregnancy. She spend hours listening to “pro-lifers” telling her she would burn in Hell for her decision. Funny, none of these “pro-lifers” had any arguments based in reality. Most of the time was spend spitting out religious dogma.

     Long story short – She is now married and a proud mother. She was able to bring a child into a loving, supportive relationship. She doesn’t mourn about the choice she made because that choice gave her the opportunity of a better future.

     Seriously, it’s quite pathetic that people actually sit around and mope about non-persons while ACTUAL people are suffering all around us.

     Maybe “pro-lifers” should spend more time helping actual living people who need assistant. There are plenty of unwanted children waiting to be adopted – many end up staying in the foster care system. Wow, what a life. I’m sure the kids who end up getting abused sure are glad that mom gave them life!

168. Do we not give children more protections under the law than adults? Why not extend this to unborn children?

     Fetuses already have exactly the same “protections” as children do when it comes to sustaining their life via the use of another person’s body – None. Happy?

     Because of the mother’s womb rights? These are trumped by the fetuses right to exist and develop.

     You keep saying that as if repeating it over and over again makes it true. But it’s not. Your rights to exist and develop are trumped by my rights to refuse to use my body to sustain my life. No one’s rights to exist and develop are greater than someone else’s rights to refuse to use their body for the first person’s existence and development. This is a long-standing and widely-accepted principle. Except when it comes to pregnancy, when suddenly a lot of people are invested in giving a fetus greater rights than they have.

     BTW, you keep changing your words when backed into a corner. I’m not sure where “protections” came from, since we’re discussing rights. Protections are something you’re given if your rights are more easily violated than someone else’s. You first have to have a right in order to have it protected. No one has a right to use someone else’s body against their will, hence it’s not something to be protected under any circumstance.

     Further, now the fetus no longer has a right to life, but a right to exist and develop, as if somehow there’s a meaningful distinction. At this point, you seem to have decided that the physical act of touching earth is the really important right. So women have to be forced to relinquish their rights so that a fetus can “look forward to” one day being born and touching the earth. After that, of course, all bets are off. If a one-day-old baby requires a bone marrow transplant to survive and a match refuses to donate, that one-day-old baby is going to die.

169. If a one-day-old baby requires a bone marrow transplant to survive and a match refuses to donate, that one-day-old baby is going to die.

     Sorry, let me rephrase that to be in keeping with your new nomenclature. The one-day-old baby is going to cease to exist and develop.

170. To all questions: I don’t know. Perhaps because none of those means of human death involve human decision.

     Neither does SIDS, cancer, heart disease, birth defects, diabetes, stroke, neurodegenerative disorders, etc, etc. Yet there are huge institutions, public and private, dedicated to finding the causes and eliminating these and other diseases which do not involve any human decision and, if every fertilized egg is a person, each kills far fewer people than any of the above. Or all of the above combined, since the vast majority of people die pre-implantation. Again, if you really believe that fertilized eggs are babies and you want to save babies, you are concentrating on the wrong issue: ignoring a pandemic because a few murders occur here and there.

171. Once a woman is impregnated no other medical procedure is required until the child is born

     Um…err…and you have how many children? Have you blocked the memory of the pregnancies? The once a month then once a week visits to the OB? The monthly then weekly urine and BP monitoring? The glucose tolerance tests? The prenatal vitamins? I’m assuming that nothing went wrong and therefore you didn’t get to see interventions like 4x a day insulin injection and 7x a day glucose monitoring, bed rest, IV fluids, parenteral nutrition…And, of course, a fair number of births require intervention of some sort: pain control, forceps/vacuum assistance, c-section, oxytocin, etc. You could argue that these things are unnecessary because women gave birth for hundreds of thousands of years without them and it’d be true. But without them a large percentage of women die in childbirth sooner or later and so do a large percentage of their offspring. Even now completing a pregnancy is not simple or safe.

172. Well, Robert, it’s been fun, but you’re really going off the rails here.

     We’re quite happy to argue with people who disagree with us here, but their arguments have to be honest and at least marginally well-informed. And yours just aren’t. Moreover, you’ve shown an incredible capacity to ignore facts. Some classics:

     And I have never used “slut-shaming” as an anti-choice argument. The “legs closed” statement is not slut-shaming.

     I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not, and all of my comments back this up. You can say, “You said she should have kept her legs shut!” all you want but that doesn’t make me a misogynist. Given the outcome, she should have, and the man as well.

     And my favorite,

     Once a woman is impregnated no other medical procedure is required until the child is born

     I’m sure you’ll respond to being banned by huffing about free speech and censorship and insisting that we just can’t handle the truth. So be it.

     Buh-bye.

173. Um…keep in mind that I have to read and analyze pretty much every sentence on this thread, since it’s basically me vs. everybody else, and I’m trying to do other things. I’m sorry if I don’t get to a particular sentence in your particular comment.

     Well, funny thing, Robert, it was the main point in my comments, and you decided to not address it in favor of going ‘BUT OMG I’M NOT A MISOGYNIST!!!!!!’

174. zuzu, thank you. That guy is a royal pain in the rear every time he shows up, like one or two others that I could mention (but don’t want to bring out of the woodwork). Given that an acquaintance of mine nearly died with her first pregnancy/birth (thank all The Powers That Be for cellphones!!!) and developed gestational diabetes with her second, my belief in a woman’s right to choose whether or not to go through pregnancy has been confirmed and strengthened tenfold. *Anyone* who thinks pregnancy is a walk in the park needs to talk to the ladies who have had troublesome ones. They are not always predictable, and they often result in permanent damage or changes of some sort. In my opinion, you should have the choice of whether or not to take that risk, no questions. And Robert was simply driving my blood pressure through the roof since there is no way to make that man get THAT. Bleah!

     Anyway, thanks again.

Comments are currently closed.