Pro-life is not “anti-choice”. Pro- life means what it says, we are for life for all human beings, from conception to natural death. This simply means we do not believe in abortion, nor do we believe in euthanasia.
We DO believe in choices for women. Those choices are: Abstinence, Birth control, parenting, or adoption. Just because we do not feel that murdering a child in the womb should not be a choice, doesn’t mean that we are against all choices.
Pro-life does not mean we are a bunch of old white men that want to control women. On the contrary, most pro-lifer’s I have met are women. Below are the demographics from my page on facebook:
Females: 70.3%, Males 29.2% You will also note that the largest percentages of pro-life women fall into the child-bearing age range.
Pro-life does not mean that we only care about the fetus, and don’t give a rip about the child or the mother once he/she is born. Crisis pregnancy centers, run by pro-life groups. assist the mother in learning how to be a good parent. They provide her with food and clothing for the child after he/she is born. Abolitionist societies all over the united states collect food, clothing and money to help new mothers in need.
Pro-life does not mean we are against women’s rights. We are all for women’s rights, just not the right to murder her child in the womb. It’s as simple as that.
Until next time. God Bless you all, and have a Merry Christmas!
Just Say No to Abortion 
Because women never oppress women….
Yes, yes you are. Bodily autonomy is central to having rights and you’re saying that something else takes precedence over that right. It doesn’t nor should it.
Thus the anti-choice, anti-woman moniker stays firmly in place, because it is accurate.
That acorn over there, according to you, is an oak tree. Misnaming the fetus does not help your case.
There is a inaccurate statistic floating about the pro-abort world that over 70% of pro-lifers are men. This is clearly not the case.
“Something” else? The child is not a “Something” he/she is a SOMEONE. Unique and a separate entity from the mother. So unless a woman all of sudden develops a second set of DNA, arms, legs, eyes, ears, a second nose, mouth, brain, heart, lungs or if she develops a penis, then it is her body. Until science can prove that this can happen, the child is indeed a separate person. What about the child’s body autonomy? Why should the mother’s take precedence over the child?
I didn’t misname the child, the pro-abort movement did when they needed to dehumanize the child in the womb in order to make themselves feel better about what they are doing. I’ve never been to a “Fetus shower” and no one has ever asked a pregnant woman when her fetus was due. I guess he/she is a child if he/she is wanted, but becomes nothing more that a blob of tissue or clump of cells when he/she is not. The word “fetus” in Latin means “offspring” or “young one”. So even if you choose to use the word fetus, you are still describing a CHILD.
Something else that has a unique relationship with woman. Without the protection of her body, her nutrients, her energy that “someone” doesn’t happen. If a woman does not want to participate in this relationship, as it is her resources being appropriate then she is allowed to terminate the agreement, as it is her body.
Fetuses, are not children. We get children after a unique event – called birth.
Why should we not trust women to make the best decisions about where they are in their life and what is best for them? The forced pregnancy brigade, to which it seems you proudly belong, seeks to remove this option for women. If you wish broodmare status for yourself, please be my guest, but forcing others to adopt your ways is wrong.
Ah, selective use of science, only when it meets your particular needs. Human development goes through a loosely distinct series of gestational phases. These names, blastocyst, fetus et cetera describe what is going on. Thus, yes a fetus is a fetus at a certain point in development it does not possess the features we ascribe to children.
Describing, but not actually is, a child. Potential child, no problems there, but a child in the sense of what we get after birth… no.
Welcome to Biology and science in general, describing what *is* instead of what we *want* things to be.
Welcome to Biology and science in general, describing what *is* instead of what we *want* things to be.
Want things to be? So you are trying to tell me that a child does not become a human being until it is born? Got news for you, but he/she is a human being from conception. So sorry but it isn’t “wanting” it to be, it already “is”.
You can sit there and spin your rhetoric until you’re blue in the face. I’m not going to buy it. Neither is any other pro-life person out there. We already know was “is” whereas you are describing what you “want” in order to justify the slaughtering of human life.
If a woman does not want to participate in this relationship, as it is her resources being appropriate then she is allowed to terminate the agreement, as it is her body.
YOu know there is a 100% foolproof way to prevent that from happening don’t you? Its called abstinence. If a woman doesn’t want to become pregnant, she shouldn’t have sex. PERIOD. Pro-aborts think a child has to die for the selfish desires of his/her mother.
Again I must point out that the fetus growing inside her is NOT her body.
“We get a child after an event called birth”- time for some educating, tree lover. Many babies are born premature and guess what; they are still babies!! Being magically born does not suddenly make a human being a human being.
Nope. Human being all the way. Different level of personhood and rights. Calling it what it is not – fetus /= baby is erroneous and used for emotive effect by forced birth advocates like yourself.
If that is what the defense of women’s rights is being called these days, guilty as charged.
Oh yes, because sex is always consensual and sex is never for pleasure. Please, by all means campaign for sex for reproductive purposes *only*. I’m very sure you’ll have strong male support for that…
Furthermore, abstinence is not a particularly effective form of birth control, especially vis a vis sex education and access to proscribed methods.
Just her nutrients, her support systems and her energy. Her resources (aka her body) her choice.
You can sit there and spin your rhetoric until you’re blue in the face.
If that is what the defense of women’s rights is being called these days, guilty as charged.
rhet·o·ric
noun
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
So you admit that you use undue exaggeration. Glad to see we agree on something.
@Life is good!
I’m all ears. 😀 😀
So, it would seem that being born is still a pretty big part of the picture, no? Crazy huh? Once born, that is, removed from the mothers support systems, it become what we call a baby. Sounds much like what I said, but thanks for the “educating”.
No, I said it makes it a baby. Here is what I said:
Quite a different statement, no? Do try and argue against what I say, as opposed to what you think I say.
You can try to twist words and meanings all you want but you are only fooling yourself. That human being has just as much right to life as you and me. Again, coming down a birth canal does not suddenly make a baby a baby. Women attend baby showers, not fetus showers because either way, the baby is a human being. Going to the doctor for check up’s while pregnant, the doctor refrs to a baby. It is a human being in different stages of life just like the rest of us. We have no right to murder a 2 year old so we should have no right to murder an unborn baby either. If my grandmother is in the hospital on a “life support system” according to your lack of logic, I have the right to kill her too. If it’s my choice to kill an unborn child, then it should also be my choice to kill anyone else I please.
@Jennifer King
Indeed, and that would be that substantive argumentation on your behalf is over.
My thanks for one of the more civil encounters I’ve had with forced birth advocates.
Thanks for proving the misconceptions.
Haha…surprise! Jennifer’s followers are dumber than she is…chicken nugget with ketchup!
Oh no! My comment is awaiting moderation AKA will be deleted because Jennifer is a coward:)
all comments await moderation my dear. I am no coward. I’ll post your idiotic statements all day long, just proves what all pro-lifers already know; and that is that the pro-aborts are the stupid hateful ones. Have a nice day dear.
I am aware that all comments await moderation, but you delete my comments all the time. You only want to talk to people that think just like you and pat you on the back for your downright silly opinions. It’s a joke. You’re a joke.
I’ve never received a comment from you before. If I had, trust me, I would have put your ignorance on display for the world to see. Sorry babe, but the jokes on you.
Nope, you’re still the joke…and when I sad that you delete all my comments, I wasn’t referring to this terrible blog. I was referring to your lovely Facebook page. You delete everything I’ve ever posted and you made it so I can’t comment or post to your wall…which is fine by me. It’s just annoying to see your bigoted, moronic psychobabble, while not allowing anyone to refute your absolute nonsense.
Carrie, as it clearly states on the page, and I have repeated it several times; The facebook page IS NOT A DEBATE PAGE. Why you guys can’t seem to understand that is beyond me. By all means, please refute my “Bigoted, Moronic psychobabble nonsense here if you wish.
Hmmm. Just checked the banned list, your name isn’t on it. I would also like to point out I have banned pro-lifers as well. I don’t tolerate anyone calling someone a baby killer or berating a woman who has had an abortion and regrets it. We offer support to post-abortive women that are looking for forgiveness and healing. We do not however, tolerate the unrepentant.
Pro-life reasoning is simple and accurate: It is a scientific fact — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq — (and basic common sense) that a new human being is created at fertilization. It is simple moral reasoning that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is what happens during 99% of abortions. The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.) but morally simple (you don’t kill unwanted humans outside the womb for those reasons, so you shouldn’t kill them inside the womb for those reasons). Their size, level of development, location and degree of dependency are not reasons to ignore their right to life.
The pro-abortion reasoning about the bodily autonomy of the mother ignores the human right of bodily autonomy for the unborn human being. Using their logic, you could fully deliver the baby and kill her with any means you like until the umbilical cord is cut (or when she is being breastfed, when your logic is based on the seemingly capital crime of using “her nutrients, her support systems and her energy. Her resources (aka her body) her choice.”).
The “forced birth” meme is illogical but useful to have in the public domain. Radical pro-abortionists like the Arbourist are unlikely to be swayed, but the more the middle ground sees that rhetoric, the better. They are the ones who will make the difference.
Whenever they mention “choice” be sure to point out that anyone supporting the Democrats is fully pro-abortion. Their platform calls for taxpayer-funded abortions, which is the opposite of choice. Now pro-lifers must pay to have innocent but unwanted human beings crushed and dismembered.
Keep up the great work, Jennifer!
@eMatters
You had me until you ruined it with the accuracy bit. The semantic games forced birth advocates play are second to none.
And this information has little or no relevance to the idea that we should equate it with someone who has been born. But I’m assuming that by saying “science” and “fact” in your assertion it makes you feel better on some level. Argumentatively speaking, not so much.
It would be nice to see some evidence that you *know* that 99% of abortions are “not properly justified”. Of course, telling women what to do with their bodies and reproductive systems, because you say so does seem to be par for the course.
You cannot separate the reasons for having an abortion from the morality of getting one. Platonic ideals are simply that. If this was a philosophical debate there might be some purchase for your notion; clearly, it isn’t a philosophical debate, thus no purchase is granted.
We do not ascribe the same rights to every human being. We never have, and sadly, most likely never will. Fetuses, are not the equivalent of someone who has been born, not in form, function or measures of dependence.
Following this idea, you must really enjoy the whole banana – peel, stem and the festive sticker they put on as well because the qualities of an item seem to have no effect on what it is. Differentiating factors are important and the false equivalents that your arguments call for make your argument absurd. But do stay true to form and enjoy the undifferentiated ‘whole banana’ because that is what your reasoning suggests.
Because unrealistic examples are the norm, rather than the exception.
I’d like for you to logically disprove the so called “forced birth meme”. I think you’ll find that it is the tenet most of what the anti-choice platform is based around. As a matter of fact, please do try and reason your way through how legislating that women cannot chose their reproductive futures isn’t accurately described as forced birth.
Precisely the reason I am here. This indeed is a demonstration of your poor argumentation and the faulty assumptions associated with the forced birth lobby. Please continue to argue against the idea that women know what is best for themselves and their futures.
Along with military, national parks, highways, infrastructure, social security – no choice there either – it must be a conspiracy!! (your tinfoil hat is waiting)
Welcome to what a civilized society looks like. As it seems most of your reasoning seems directly to originate from the Dark Ages, it is not a surprise that the health of women and their reproductive freedom rank so low in your priorities. That’s okay, we can’t all be 21st century progressives and we do need examples to what retrograde anti-woman sentiment is all about.
“And this information has little or no relevance to the idea that we should equate it with someone who has been born. ”
Of course it is relevant. Human beings have intrinsic valuable. You aren’t disposable just because someone in control of you thinks you don’t have value.
“But I’m assuming that by saying “science” and “fact” in your assertion it makes you feel better on some level. Argumentatively speaking, not so much.”
I’m too pro-science to be pro-abortion.
“It would be nice to see some evidence that you *know* that 99% of abortions are “not properly justified”.”
Every set of stats I’ve ever seen say that 1% or less are to save the life of the mother. You wouldn’t be able to kill anyone outside the womb for the reasons for the other 99%, so there is no justification to kill humans inside the womb for those reasons.
“Of course, telling women what to do with their bodies and reproductive systems, because you say so does seem to be par for the course.”
Like nearly all pro-abortion arguments, yours carries the fallacy of begging the question: You’ve ignored the human being crushed and dismembered in the womb and her rights.
“Platonic ideals are simply that. If this was a philosophical debate there might be some purchase for your notion; clearly, it isn’t a philosophical debate, thus no purchase is granted.”
Oh, but it is entirely philosophical. The science is bulletproof: The unborn are human beings. So the philosophical/moral question is whether you are justified in killing them. You aren’t.
“We do not ascribe the same rights to every human being. We never have, and sadly, most likely never will. ”
Thanks for tipping your hand. Why is it sad that we don’t value all humans the same?
“Fetuses, are not the equivalent of someone who has been born, not in form, function or measures of dependence.”
They are human fetuses, i.e., human beings at a particular stage of development. It is no different than you saying that it would be OK to kill human toddlers, because they are just toddlers, or human geriatrics.
“Following this idea, you must really enjoy the whole banana – peel, stem and the festive sticker they put on as well because the qualities of an item seem to have no effect on what it is. ”
“Because unrealistic examples are the norm, rather than the exception.”
Nope, I’m just taking your views to their logical conclusion. Are you ok with killing the baby via any means the mother chooses as long as the umbilical cord is attached?
Yes, I’m anti-choice and proud of it: Anti-choice to kill innocent but unwanted human beings.
And you aren’t pro-choice, you are pro-abortion — unless you voted against the Dems and their pro-taxpayer funded abortion platform.
“Please continue to argue against the idea that women know what is best for themselves and their futures.”
Again, you commit fallacy #1: You ignored the innocent human beings destroyed in abortions and their futures.
“Welcome to what a civilized society looks like. ”
Abortion is the opposite of civilized society.
And that intrinsic value is mutable and societal determined. See apartheid and racism for historical examples.
You don’t look for very many stats then, or more likely just the ones that happen to support your position.
There is no fallacy present here. In the very first response I mentioned the semantic games that are so popular with forced birth advocates such as yourself.
You can call it whatever you would like, but we do not ascribe the same rights and responsibilities to a fetus as we do a child, intrinsic or otherwise. Assuming so, is patently absurd because a zygote is not a child, nor is a fetus, nor is a blastocyst. Is it a potential human being? Yes it is, and we will call it murder when we start seeing blastocysts and zygotes paying taxes and voting, for that is the absurd equivalency you continue to argue.
Never voted for a Democrat. Not now, and not ever. You see, here in Canada women actually do have all of their rights and can access an abortion, paid for by our universal healthcare system, when they think it is right for them and their families. The Democrats are finally getting women the healthcare they need, more power to them.
Err, no it is just that I won’t accept you eliminating women from the equation. It is their body and their rights first and foremost over anything that happens to be living, parasitically or otherwise inside their body.
Actually it is, if your definition of civilization includes the empowerment of women.
speaking of civilized society, enjoy these abortionists’ quotes — http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/10-surprising-quotes-from-abortionists
Civilized: 1. to bring out of a savage state.
What is more savage that ripping the limbs and crushing the skull of a living human being?
“As a matter of fact, please do try and reason your way through how legislating that women cannot chose their reproductive futures isn’t accurately described as forced birth.”
“Reproductive futures” is a bad choice of words, just like “reproductive choice.” Again, back to the irrefutable science: A new human being has already been reproduced. The question is whether she should be able to be crushed and dismembered because she is unwanted.
“Along with military, national parks, highways, infrastructure, social security – no choice there either – it must be a conspiracy!! (your tinfoil hat is waiting)”
I think you misunderstood my point. I concede that there are some things the gov’t forces us to pay for whether we like it or not, so there is no debate about that. I was merely pointing out that with the pro-taxpayer funded abortion platform of the Democrats and the rules of Obamacare, there is no such thing as pro-choice any longer. You are pro-abortion if you support those policies, because you want to force others to pay for abortions and you think society will be better if we have more abortions. (Your policies are incredibly racist as well, given that the abortion rate for blacks is 3x that of whites, and that will surely climb with taxpayer-funded abortions.)
Big whoop. The majority of human beings get flushed out in the menses because they don’t implant. I’m not seeing a lot of action going on to save those particular “human beings”. And if you were consistent, you would be, but as always this is about stripping women of their autonomy.
Yes I do, and it will. Women are the ones best situated to make decisions about their reproductive choices.
If you look closely, you’ll notice that society is incredibly racist. Did you ever ponder the socioeconomic reasons why blacks and Hispanics have more abortions? Watch the video, its the third link in the previous response.
Big whoop. The majority of human beings get flushed out in the menses because they don’t implant. I’m not seeing a lot of action going on to save those particular “human beings”. And if you were consistent, you would be, but as always this is about stripping women of their autonomy.
What you are describing is a natural occurrence. No woman knows if an egg implants or not, if an egg is even fertilized or not. Out of all your ridiculous comments here, this one has to take the cake. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said:
“The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”
Just as a woman’s “autonomy” ends where the baby begins. Don’t give me any of that “living off of her body” crap either. By that logic one of a set of conjoined twins should be allowed to kill off his/her sibling because the other is “living off of” the others heart or lungs or kidneys or whatever.
Pregnancy is a temporary situation, 9 months and the mother gets her “autonomy” back. You people act like its permanent.
Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse if the intention is to start legislating what a woman can and cannot do with her body. And hey whoa there…we are not talking eggs (fertiliized/not fertilzed, both are expelled fairly regularly as implantation is not 100%) we are talking about a human being, lets not forget that. These are PEOPLE that you are so casually dismissing!
Or did you want to stop with the semantics are acknowledge that your baby definition is based on a romantic interpretation that allows for pleas of mercy about not crushing and dismembering babies? No, probably not.
Because it is untrue? Because somehow pregnancy is easy? Because somehow pregnancy isn’t dangerous to the mother?
.
So again, tell me how amazing how your forced birth requirements are going to be for women, because it is working so well in places where women don’t have access to reproductive health services. Conditions that you want to replicate here in North America.
You’re really good at taking things out of context. Please quote my entire comment before going off on your rant.
“And that intrinsic value is mutable and societal determined. See apartheid and racism for historical examples.”
Once again, we agree. So unless you are saying that racism (the kind that results in dead black babies at a rate of 3x that of whites, based on your policies) and apartheid are good ideas then you’ve just made my point. If you think they were good ideas then you’ve really made my point.
“There is no fallacy present here. In the very first response I mentioned the semantic games that are so popular with forced birth advocates such as yourself.”
Yes, it is the fallacy of begging the question, i.e., assuming what you should be proving. If it weren’t such a serious topic it would be amusing to watch pro-aborts make the same mistake over and over.
“You can call it whatever you would like, but we do not ascribe the same rights and responsibilities to a fetus as we do a child, intrinsic or otherwise. ”
That argument proves nothing except to state the obvious. We agree we don’t currently assign the same rights to the unborn — that’s the point of the discussion. So for you to state that isn’t an argument for your side.
And we don’t assign the same responsibilities to a toddler as we do a teen or an adult. Again, your point doesn’t make a point.
“Assuming so, is patently absurd because a zygote is not a child, nor is a fetus, nor is a blastocyst.”
Right. And toddlers aren’t teens. You still aren’t proving anything.
“Is it a potential human being? Yes it is, and we will call it murder when we start seeing blastocysts and zygotes paying taxes and voting, for that is the absurd equivalency you continue to argue.”
You are anti-science. Every embryology text (and common sense) will tell you that a human sperm and a human egg unite to make a human being (what else would they make?!).
And toddlers don’t pay taxes or vote, so I’m not sure why you make such a poor argument as to say the equivalency is absurd. Using your logic we’d legalize infanticide and more.
“Err, no it is just that I won’t accept you eliminating women from the equation. It is their body and their rights first and foremost over anything that happens to be living, parasitically or otherwise inside their body.”
Once again, you ignore the body of the human being who gets destroyed.
And your parasite argument is great to see. It fails logically on many levels, not to mention how even you refuse to defend its logical conclusion of being able to kill a baby with any means until the umbilical cord is cut. After all, there is no law to keep you from killing a parasite with a hammer, a gun, Raid, etc.
“Actually it is, if your definition of civilization includes the empowerment of women.”
It is truly sad that you think you have to be able to kill your children to prove your worth. I think your life has meaning and value even if you don’t have the right to kill your own offspring.
So then why do you not extend your teleological argument to protecting sperm and egg? We’ll go around the “human being(blastocyst, fetus, etc) does not equal personhood (what we give to born members of society) track a few more times I’m sure. But I’m not particularly worried about the absurd equivalencies that your attempting to make at the moment.
I absolutely do. No one gets to use my body without permission, foetal or otherwise and I suspect you feel the same way. Here’s why.
What organs/body parts would you agree to have the state mandate as off limits to your wishes? If we are to be gung-ho about saving life why are we stopping with merely stripping women of their rights? If life can be saved, then the right to say what is going on in our body should be put in second place.
This works with human beings and a reasonable definition of personhood, as opposed to what you’re pulling for. For example –
Bob has a terminal liver disease. You have the match to Bob’s liver and he would require only about a half of your for him to live. The operation is only say, risky as being pregnant (fairly risky in the developing world, still risky here), and lets say the side effects are similar.
Are you committing murder if you say no to Bob’s request? Should the state legislate the rights to your liver (choose an organ) away? If liver donation is too big a leap, consider the classic shared kidney example.
How are the rights to your organs any different that a woman’s right to her uterus? Pro-tip: They are not. Both are capable of sustaining life in others, and both, thankfully, belong to the person that they reside in.
Thus, again, it comes down to bodily autonomy and the rights of women. Either women have autonomy and rights, or they do not. You campaign to remove the right of bodily autonomy from women and steal our reproductive freedom. I don’t discuss “rights” of the fetus or Bob for that matter, their “rights” are not relevant because it is not their body being used.
So, when Bob (with his life in your hands) shows up and asks for one of your organs, or use of them, your answer had better be yes and yes with a happy pro-life smile. If it isn’t, then what are your reasons?
“Big whoop. The majority of human beings get flushed out in the menses because they don’t implant. I’m not seeing a lot of action going on to save those particular “human beings”. And if you were consistent, you would be, but as always this is about stripping women of their autonomy.”
Your observation is false. People do all sorts of things to improve fertility.
And your analogy fails. Can you see the difference between A and B?
A. Human being dies of natural causes (inside or outside the womb)
B. Human being has skull crushed and limbs ripped off by a 3rd party (inside or outside the womb)
“Yes I do, and it will. Women are the ones best situated to make decisions about their reproductive choices.”
You misstated the facts again. With abortion they have already reproduced. A new human being exists. Toddlers would also qualify for death under your definition.
“If you look closely, you’ll notice that society is incredibly racist. Did you ever ponder the socioeconomic reasons why blacks and Hispanics have more abortions? Watch the video, its the third link in the previous response.”
We agree that racism exists. I’m pointing out how your policies hasten the destruction of more blacks and hispanics relative to whites.
“So then why do you not extend your teleological argument to protecting sperm and egg? We’ll go around the “human being(blastocyst, fetus, etc) does not equal personhood (what we give to born members of society) track a few more times I’m sure. But I’m not particularly worried about the absurd equivalencies that your attempting to make at the moment.”
Nothing absurd about it. A sperm is not a unique human being. Neither is an egg. Combined, they are a unique human being at a particular stage of development. That’s science, and that’s logic.
“Personhood” is an elusive philosophical construct designed to de-humanize the unborn (just as has been done with slaves, Jews, etc.). And it is a poorly designed construct: The pro-aborts are all over the board with their definitions. Some bizarre yet consistent “ethicists” like Peter Singer think that “non-personhood justified infanticide.
“I absolutely do. No one gets to use my body without permission, foetal or otherwise and I suspect you feel the same way. Here’s why.
What organs/body parts would you agree to have the state mandate as off limits to your wishes? If we are to be gung-ho about saving life why are we stopping with merely stripping women of their rights? If life can be saved, then the right to say what is going on in our body should be put in second place.”
False analogy. You would be the mother in the case of abortion.
“Bob has a terminal liver disease. You have the match to Bob’s liver and he would require only about a half of your for him to live. The operation is only say, risky as being pregnant (fairly risky in the developing world, still risky here), and lets say the side effects are similar.
Are you committing murder if you say no to Bob’s request? Should the state legislate the rights to your liver (choose an organ) away? If liver donation is too big a leap, consider the classic shared kidney example.”
The notion of murdering Bob is silly. In abortion you literally destroy the human being. Not giving Bob your liver is a complete non sequitur.
Here’s an answer from an pro-life atheist female lawyer to that: By that line of reasoning, a woman would be totally justified in killing her baby a day before its due date.
That absurdity aside, their analysis fails (at least legally, if not morally). While you are never responsible for keeping someone else alive, you are responsible for doing so if you created the situation in which they are dependent upon you. The classic example is a person who is drowning in the ocean. You, as a boater with a life preserver, are under no obligation to help them out of the water. If, however, you were the one who chucked her overboard, then watched her drown, you can bet that a jury would convict your immoral butt for murder, not for ruining her clothes by getting her wet.
Likewise, you are under no obligation to give a dying person a kidney to save his life, but, if you ripped his kidneys out of his body, you would be charged with murder if he died from those injuries. If the only way to avoid his death is to give him your kidneys, you can bet that your options are to fork over an organ or be charged with murder.
“How are the rights to your organs any different that a woman’s right to her uterus? Pro-tip: They are not. Both are capable of sustaining life in others, and both, thankfully, belong to the person that they reside in.”
Thus, again, it comes down to bodily autonomy and the rights of women. Either women have autonomy and rights, or they do not. ”
Failed again, by ignoring the autonomy of the unborn. What about her rights? And again, your argument would justify using RAID, a gun, or anything else to kill her while the umbilical cord is connected, or even while breastfeeding. I realize that doesn’t give you pause, but I love it when pro-aborts have to concede that or admit their argument proves too much.
And please re-read your argument and note the internal inconsistency. You imply that the unborn takes your uterus away again your will. That isn’t even close to the truth.
“You campaign to remove the right of bodily autonomy from women and steal our reproductive freedom. ”
I’m weary of repeating myself, but you’ve failed the logical and scientific side again. Abortion kills unwanted human beings who have already been reproduced. If they hadn’t been reproduced then you wouldn’t want an abortion, because there would be nothing to abort.
So keep repeating your emotive sound bite about evil pro-lifers stealing your reproductive freedom, but if you have a shred of intellectual honesty you’ll never use that argument again.
“I don’t discuss “rights” of the fetus or Bob for that matter, their “rights” are not relevant because it is not their body being used.”
Their bodies are too busy being crushed and dismembered to be used.
If you are interested in a thorough response to Judith Jarvis’ violinist / kidney argument then read this — http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5689 .
Wishing away analogies doesn’t get you anything. The analogy is stronger because we are talking about two people with no questions about personhood and rights, as they are both fully endowed. It still would not be okay for the state to force one party via the use of their body to help another person against their wishes.
Ah, because Bob’s death is different than fetal death? In what way? Is Bob’s life is somehow different, and he has some different level of personhood? No, the only process going on here is that once we frame your argument in terms of equivalent human beings it falls apart because it violates the autonomy of one party unequivocally,and thus is not morally or ethically acceptable.
Nope, the mother’s autonomy supercedes the autonomy of the fetus. Just like it would be if it was Bob who is a fully formed human being with all rights and protections conferred by society.
I’m thinking you actually like hearing yourself talk, because just saying things are wrong, doesn’t make them wrong.
Oh I see. This particular medieval argument comes up. Just keep your legs closed and you won’t get pregnant. Let’s add the “sex is onlyfor reproduction” part as well to make our journey to the unrealistic side complete.
So, women do get to control their reproductive lives in this platonic happy land, because they always have consent with regards to their sexual relations and, strangely, there is no sex for pleasure. Is there a secret path to get this mystical realm – a door through a wardrobe perhaps?
Riiiiiight. Oh do go there, I haven’t heard the victim-blaming by responsible ‘moral’ authority trope for days.
Legislating what I get to do with my uterus isn’t taking away my reproductive freedom? I’m not sure I follow. It sure sounds like my reproductive system….then there are my wishes…and then there is a law saying I cannot do what I want with my reproductive system.
Yah, I’m going to have to go with the anti-choice, forced birth lobby are all about stealing my reproductive freedom.
Still a false analogy.
“Nope, the mother’s autonomy supercedes the autonomy of the fetus. Just like it would be if it was Bob who is a fully formed human being with all rights and protections conferred by society.”
False dichotomy. You are implying that one must die. Do I really have to type these things?
“Oh I see. This particular medieval argument comes up. Just keep your legs closed and you won’t get pregnant. Let’s add the “sex is onlyfor reproduction” part as well to make our journey to the unrealistic side complete.”
Amusing. All I said was, “Abortion kills unwanted human beings who have already been reproduced. If they hadn’t been reproduced then you wouldn’t want an abortion, because there would be nothing to abort.” That’s irrefutable. Your emotive term of “reproductive choice” is completely fallacious when it comes to abortion.
“So, women do get to control their reproductive lives in this platonic happy land, because they always have consent with regards to their sexual relations and, strangely, there is no sex for pleasure. Is there a secret path to get this mystical realm – a door through a wardrobe perhaps?”
They get to control them before they have reproduced. After that, by definition, they already reproduced a new human being. The question is whether that human being, unwanted by the mother, gets to be killed and at what stages of development.
“Legislating what I get to do with my uterus isn’t taking away my reproductive freedom? I’m not sure I follow. It sure sounds like my reproductive system….then there are my wishes…and then there is a law saying I cannot do what I want with my reproductive system.”
LOL. I see you are intellectually dishonest. Thanks for the concession. Once again, abortion kills human beings after they have been reproduced. If they haven’t been reproduced then you couldn’t have an abortion even if you wanted one because there would be nothing to abort. So keep on with your fallacious sound bites while we expose your methods to the world.
Yah, I’m going to have to go with the anti-choice, forced birth lobby are all about stealing my reproductive freedom.
Another thought on consistency — as fallacious as the bodily autonomy argument is when arguing for the right to kill unwanted human beings (which, of course, ignores their bodily autonomy), it seems like anyone holding your view should be wildly opposed to any taxpayer funding of birth control or abortions. After all, if it is 100.00000% your uterus and such, how can you turn around and insist that others are obligated to pay for its care?
Extending the argument does not help your side. I’m not seeing the anti-choice movement campaign for paid maternal leave, social supports (welfare) for mothers, universal healthcare, universal daycare…etc. You know, programs that would help mothers and children immensely. No…all I see is a hollow campaign vapidly going on about saving “life” and then declaring “mission accomplished” once women lose the rights to their body.
Abortions will happen whether they are legal or not. Going by the Guttmacher institutes stats, roughly 1 in 3 women will have an abortion during their lives. You endanger women’s lives by making abortion contentious, never-mind illegal. Your tepid commitment to life begins and ends with the fetus at the expense of the well-being of the mother.
“Extending the argument does not help your side.”
Dodging the argument doesn’t help yours. I’m simply pointing out your gross inconsistency. You want to claim “bodily autonomy” (while ignoring the autonomy of the human you want to kill) and then insist that society has a responsibility to fund your sex life. Sure.
“I’m not seeing the anti-choice movement campaign for paid maternal leave, social supports (welfare) for mothers, universal healthcare, universal daycare…etc. You know, programs that would help mothers and children immensely. No…all I see is a hollow campaign vapidly going on about saving “life” and then declaring “mission accomplished” once women lose the rights to their body.”
While pro-lifers do many things with their own time and money to help the poor, protesting an immoral act does not obligate you to take care of its victims. Just as you can protest child abuse without having to adopt all the children, you don’t have to adopt children before you can protest the crushing and dismembering of innocent human beings in the womb.
“Abortions will happen whether they are legal or not.”
Is that an argument? Have you noticed that we have lots of laws, and there are still prisons full of law-breakers! So using your logic, we shouldn’t make anything illegal because the crimes will happen anyway.
“Going by the Guttmacher institutes stats, roughly 1 in 3 women will have an abortion during their lives. You endanger women’s lives by making abortion contentious, never-mind illegal.”
So lots of people committing a crime means it shouldn’t be a crime. Check.
” Your tepid commitment to life begins and ends with the fetus at the expense of the well-being of the mother.”
That is not true. I support laws saying that you can’t crush the mother’s skull and rip her limbs off just because you don’t like her.
“Yah, I’m going to have to go with the anti-choice, forced birth lobby are all about stealing my reproductive freedom.”
By all means, call me anti-choice, just kindly finish the sentence: I am anti-choice to kill unwanted human beings in the womb.
And once again, for anyone remotely familiar with science or common sense, abortions kill human beings who have already been reproduced, so the “reproductive freedom” emotional ploy is fallacious.
And apparently the ad hom. For one who is keen on their fallacies it would behoove you not to engage in them. Of course, it does say much about your level of understanding of them.
I get to say who uses my organs and my body, human being status not being particularly relevant to the issue. But you could mention crushing skulls again, it is certainly helping your case.
Okay, I’ll send Bob to you when he needs use of your organs. Enjoy that mandatory donation. And yes, use of organs of another is an apt analogy, just because I know you’d love to ‘false analogy’ the idea again, despite its relevance.
“I get to say who uses my organs and my body, human being status not being particularly relevant to the issue. But you could mention crushing skulls again, it is certainly helping your case.”
You ignored the human being that you plan to kill or have killed.
“Okay, I’ll send Bob to you when he needs use of your organs. Enjoy that mandatory donation. ”
Bob has no claim on my organs. The baby isn’t consuming your organs and killing you. False analogy.
“Actually not an argument, just a statement of fact. And you would deny women access to safe medical procedures and imprison the ones that dared oppose your particularly twisted version of morality. So, what would the prison sentence for mothers who sought abortions?”
Straw man. We favor prison for the abortionists. We donate time and money to pregnancy centers to help the mothers.
And you deny life to the unwanted human beings. Where is their safe medical procedures?
“Ah yes, because accessing reproductive health care services is criminal. What is criminal is sentencing women to death via pregnancy because you’re trying to preserve life.”
Abortions kill human beings that have reproduced.
Straw man. The tiny fraction of abortions to save the life of the mother are consistent with the pro-life ethic.
“Yet women dying because of lack of reproductive care doesn’t seem trouble you.”
Abortions still kill humans that have already reproduced.
“Your animosity toward women is noted. ”
Ha! Yes, be sure to tell my mom, wife, daughters, in-laws, friends, co-volunteers at CareNet, etc. They need to know my dark secret about not wanting to help women — especially those killed in gender-selection abortions, nearly all of which kill females for the sole reason that they are female.
“Oh and there is the skull crushing and limb ripping again, full marks for appeal to emotion, do try some other adjectives once and awhile.”
Please re-read the thread and see who appeals to emotion. I am merely describing the procedure. If you don’t like the description, that speaks volumes..
“Thankfully, abortion is available on demand in much of the civilized world.”
Killing unwanted babies = civilized. Check. Pro-abortion reasoning in a nutshell.
“Women are winning this battle for our rights and we shall not go back.”
The right to kill their unwanted children. Check.
“Women are winning this battle for our rights and we shall not go back.”
P.S. Early feminists viewed abortion as a symptom of the lack of women’s rights.
Jennifer, thanks for hosting this! It is getting repetitive, so I’ll bow out. I think I’ve pre-answered whatever Arbourist will come up with next. I rejoice in the ability to have the pro-abortion arguments laid out so clearly and to be able to annihilate them. I have great confidence that the middle ground people will see the light. Blessings to you!
Thanks for keeping it up as long as you did. You are correct in that is it getting repetitive, and you have indeed annihilated hos arguments. They are quite tired and have been refuted over and over, yet they are clinging to them for dear life. What the Arbourist refuses to see is that pro-life is indeed winning. There has been more legislation to limit the access to abortion, (Not healthcare, which is another fallacious argument) there are less and less abortion clinics, and even less doctors willing to train in how to perform them.