Skip to main content

Given the conditons on the ground in the War on Women, I thought I would republish my little Manifesto. I beg the indulgence of those who have read it before.

There is nothing to 'debate.'

My ova, my fetuses, my children and my sexual organs are mine. They are not YOURS. They are not the State's. My sexual life is private and not subject to public or religious review.

My sexuality is private. Why would anyone presume to discuss it with me? Or follow me down the street trying to give me a baby blanket or wave a sign in my face. Simple. They are getting off. A fact of women's lives, from the moment they get close to puberty and sometimes before, is that somebody is always trying to rub up against you. I am drawing a line in the sand. No discussion. My sexuality is private. Mind your own business. That is a truly American value.

Anyone who performs some action on my life/body to resolve or relieve their own longing or discomfort without request or consent from me is a rapist. That is the definition of rape.

I include in the set (rapists) those who describe themselves as 'prochoice' whose benevolence includes acting economically and morally to 'make abortion rare.' Bugger off. You are all intrusive, annoying, and perverted in your focus. Mind your own sex organs. I do not want you thinking about or doing anything about mine.

I want the Democratic Party to live up to the party platform and defend and provide for the welfare of women by unequivocally supporting safe and legal medical abortion and contraception. I am encouraged by some signs that Democrats will do so. Or if you cannot stand Democrats, vote Green or Socialist or Independent. But Vote.

Governments only responsibility is to teach human biology to those in public schools. When the Government has the Stones to do that, at the least, then we can talk. The European countries have lower teen pregnancy rates and lower rates of infant/mother mortality because they teach human biology to their children. And they provide universal health care.

I make no bones about it. My issue is Women's Health and Freedom. You could be the best thing since sliced bread on all the issues, but mess with Roe v. Wade and abortion and contraception access and your ass is mine. Figuratively speaking of course. I am no slimy terrorist.

Originally posted to The Purple Pits on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:50 AM PDT.

Also republished by Abortion, Sluts, and Pro Choice.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (223+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marykk, wilderness voice, Pinto Pony, quiet in NC, Eric Twocents, stevie avebury, JoeEngineer, Gooserock, hwmnbn, kathny, mcgee85, Leftcandid, historys mysteries, howabout, susanala, gulfgal98, Siri, ItsSimpleSimon, conniptionfit, Brooke In Seattle, Little Lulu, gzodik, AdamR510, annrose, Polly Syllabic, m00finsan, Smoh, NYFM, Libral Antibagger, Sylv, bronte17, weck, radarlady, dsb, gerard w, arlene, cassandracarolina, Dopeman, MartyM, high uintas, Ice Blue, karmsy, lunachickie, mapamp, democracy inaction, MadRuth, sailmaker, Alice Venturi, means are the ends, shaggies2009, eru, highacidity, geebeebee, fixxit, SueM1121, john07801, LSophia, AnnCetera, muddy boots, lissablack, OldDragon, mamamedusa, Nicci August, tin woodswoman, Sychotic1, Damnit Janet, ZedMont, zerelda, julifolo, turn blue, tegrat, mofembot, bluck, prettygirlxoxoxo, shaharazade, bakeneko, nupstateny, Voiceless, arizonablue, blueoregon, alnep, Chi, juliesie, mookins, Pluto, Mlle L, jayden, lotusmaglite, kjoftherock, VirginiaBlue, chicating, where4art, caul, randomfacts, Renee, Bernie68, Gustogirl, sjburnman, Hanging Up My Tusks, Oaktown Girl, importer, DollyMadison, rantsposition, greengemini, jennylind, NonnyO, Portlaw, WheninRome, rogerdaddy, exiledfromTN, regis, Lucy2009, CanadaGoose, deha, asterkitty, artisan, MagentaMN, zedaker, pyegar, freelunch, FarWestGirl, Yo Bubba, LaFeminista, Ralphdog, susakinovember, AlwaysDemocrat, rexymeteorite, SteelerGrrl, fiddlingnero, bearette, cocinero, technomage, srelar, domestic goddess, Dragon5616, TigerMom, AaronInSanDiego, RagingGurrl, psnyder, implicate order, HighSticking, mumtaznepal, LefseBlue, althea in il, skrekk, GrannyOPhilly, PBnJ, Calamity Jean, chidmf, Otteray Scribe, Mayfly, gooderservice, Alumbrados, Radiowalla, Heiuan, Themistoclea, Thinking Fella, terryhallinan, Nance, tonyahky, cacamp, Trotskyrepublican, JDWolverton, kerflooey, pfiore8, CA Nana, Rogneid, retLT, sngmama, Fiddlegirl, Desert Rose, MrSandman, Miss Jones, Avilyn, thomask, melpomene1, edsbrooklyn, northerntier, Lensy, big annie, stevenwag, Kentucky DeanDemocrat, SanFernandoValleyMom, MA Liberal, ATFILLINOIS, dmhlt 66, CoExistNow, Dump Terry McAuliffe, real world chick, fhcec, bookbear, MNGlasnant, GayHillbilly, ekyprogressive, Carlo, crose, Militarytracy, Cronesense, Sassy, doingbusinessas, Tam in CA, LeftHandedMan, Glinda, NJpeach, 2thanks, platypus60, Regina in a Sears Kit House, Oh Mary Oh, cspivey, twigg, opinionated, tardis10, reginahny, BMarshall, hopeful, skyounkin, CarolinNJ, swampyankee, Robynhood too, martydd, Larsstephens, Sharoney, Carol in San Antonio

    I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

    by CherryTheTart on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:50:15 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, you would think that should end it... (29+ / 0-)

    Unfortunately they think they are the only ones with morals so to them, you are at animal level...and you know how we as a society treat animals.

    The more you learn the less you know.

    by quiet in NC on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:08:15 AM PDT

  •  So... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ShaunMcDonnell, belzaboo

    the act of disallowing abortion clinics is rape, and your womb is a sex organ. And therefore the debate has ended.

    From that should I assume that you support abortion on demand in the 8th month of a pregnancy?

    •  At 8 mo., doctors are needed (44+ / 0-)

      So if a liscenses doctor agrees, and the staff cooperates, yes.

      Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

      by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:41:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If contraception is cheap and available, and (72+ / 0-)

      everyone knows about it and how to use it.....

      abortions in the 8th month of pregnancy will be rare. And probably necessary because the baby is dead, so malformed that it won't live more than a few hours, or to save the life of the mother.

      All other abortions will be....equally rare.

      Contraception prevents unwanted pregnancies. Fewer unwanted pregnancies means fewer abortions.

      Despite this undisputable fact, people like you insist that woman should have little or no access to contraception. And that any woman who want contraception is a de facto whore. (Yet, despite it taking two people to create a pregnancy, I never hear a word about the men involved.....who have no trouble getting Viagra paid for by their insurance companies.)

      If you were sincere about ending abortions, you'd be on every street corner handing out free condoms, and fliers for places where women could get the Pill and the IUD for free.

      The foot soldiers of the anti-abortion movement may be sincere, since they've been shown chopped up babies and persuaded that only "sluts" and "prostitutes" need abortions. The top brass knows better....for them, it's simple. They want to keep women, in the classic phrase, barefoot and pregnant...perpetually locked into their traditional role of male-controlled livestock, valued essentially for sex, unpaid labor and producing offspring.

      Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

      by Sirenus on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:04:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Clue phone for 1918 here: (46+ / 0-)

      You seem to have missed the point here.
      It's none of your business what month of pregnancy someone is in.  
      It's none of your business if they are even pregnant.
      Did you get that? It's none of your business.
      Mind your own body.

      •  I have not missed the point at all. (0+ / 0-)

        Simple question to allow the author to make themselves clear. Which I take from the responses is unlimited on demand abortion access up to the day of birth. Any that it is nobody else's business to question that.

        How exactly that radical opinion eliminates the debate on abortion (as claimed) is a mystery to me.

        •  There is no debate on abortion (22+ / 0-)

          because someone else's abortion is none of your business.

          The only debate on abortion is the one (you might have) between you
          and your partner.

          •  Not the case (0+ / 0-)

            The is (or should be) medical staff and facilities, provided by others. But apparently, despite this being a private decision, the lack of facilities provided by others is the equivalent of rape.

            •  Get off your sanctimonious steed. (5+ / 0-)

              OBVIOUSLY medical staff are involved in a later term abortion.  ANd with conscience clauses, objectors can--and likely will--allow someone to bleed to death befoe they'l perform one to save the woman's life  or even to make the phone call to ahve her sent to another hospital with aless medieval attitude toward the value of women's lives--because that phoine call to them is the same as taking a knife, slicing her open and pulling out a live baby in perfect condition and then strangling it.

              The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

              by irishwitch on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:49:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I think the vast majority of America... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coffeetalk, politicalmetrics

            would disagree with you on this.  When a fetus is considered a viable human being is the very heart of the debate--which unfortunatly has not ended.

            The more you learn the less you know.

            by quiet in NC on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:40:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That debate will NEVER end which is why (19+ / 0-)

              the only answer is that the choice is mine and only mine.

              simple

              •  This is true if and only if (0+ / 0-)
                the choice is mine and only mine
                You assume that the fetus is not a separate human life.  That's not "simple."  That's a conclusion that rests solidly on a moral/philosophical/religious assumption. If you accept that assumption, THEN you are right -- it is a simple proposition.  If you accept that assumption, then it is the choice of the woman, and the woman only, because she is the ONLY human life involved.  

                If you assume that the fetus IS a separate human life, then there is another human life involved.  If you accept that assumption, THEN it becomes the business of the State, which has a interest in preventing one person from unilaterally deciding to end another human life.  

                •  The only person responsible for that NEW life (5+ / 0-)

                  is the mother.  The state can only be responsible for a person's rights.  The only rights that exist are the mother's because legally, as fart as the state goes- she is the only person who exists.

                  •  Actually, this is wrong on two points. (0+ / 0-)
                    as far as the state goes- she is the only person who exists.
                    First, it is wrong as a matter of fact and law.  Roe v. Wade recognizes that, after viability, there is another "person" whose interests can be considered, and protected, by the State.  Let me quote:  
                    With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [p164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
                    This is a statement that, constitutionally, the State can consider another person that "exists" in addition to the woman -- because, constitutionally, the State can act to protect the life of that other "person."  

                    So this statement is just wrong:

                    as far as the state goes- she is the only person who exists.
                    Second, it is the wrong approach, if you are pro-choice.  If the only thing that kept the State from regulating abortion is the notion that, until birth, a fetus is not a "person," then a State constitutional amendment stating that a fetus is a "person" would, under your argument, allow that State legislature to ban all abortions, because at that point -- in that state -- a fetus IS a person.  

                    What is a "person" or not, for purposes of many rights,  is defined by a Constitution.  And voters can amend a Constitution. So, if you are pro-life, you would love for the Supreme Court to say this, because you can then (in a red state) pass a constitutional amendment defining that "personhood," for certain stated purposes, begins at conception, and then you'd outlaw all abortions in that state.  

                    •  May I suggest: (7+ / 0-)

                      Use the terms "pro-choice" or "anti-choice."  The "pro-lifers" are very often pro-war, which means they are also pro-death, since war often produces much death, both of military personnel and "collateral damage" by killing innocent bystanders who are not military personnel.

                      When it comes to fetuses, they are not "pro-life."  They're only "anti-choice" - against a woman being able to choose whether or not to carry the fetus to term.

                      Once the fetus has reached term, has lived a life, if it joins the military as a legal adult, it may be subject to being killed in the military (even in an unconstitutional and illegal war), and the alleged 'pro-lifers' often support killing or being killed in war, so they're entirely pro-death at that point and extoll the virtues of 'being killed for their country' and call the dead 'heroes.'  The 'pro-lifers' don't tend to be pacifists when it comes to war and killing or being killed in war.

                      So, if you don't mind, 'pro-choice' and 'anti-choice' are the preferred terms.

                      Thank you.

                      I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

                      by NonnyO on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:38:52 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Actually, I use the terms that a group itself (0+ / 0-)

                        uses, not the terms that a group's opponent uses.  I try to do that consistently in comments in various areas.  I don't use any of the derogatory names for either the former, or present, Presidents, for example.  I use the term  "Affordable Care Act," "ACA," or health care legislation, to refer to the health care legislation rather than "Obamacare," the term preferred by its opponents.

                        I use "pro-choice," the term preferred by that group, not "pro-abortion," (or, even worse, "pro-death") as the opponents would prefer.  In the same vein, I use the term "pro-life," the term preferred by that group, not "anti-choice," the term preferred by opponents.  I presume that people here are intelligent enough to know to whom I'm referring.  

                        •  As the term (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Sharoney

                          is so patently euphemistic, using it in the interest of familiarity does come at some price of aggrandizing deceit. Might be a time for the proverbial exception.  

                          and I wait for them to interrupt my drinking from this broken cup

                          by le sequoit on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:44:45 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Which is why the decision must remain (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CherryTheTart, tardis10, martydd, Sharoney

                  the woman's.  Why should one sect be allowed to force its religious beliefs down the throats of those who do not belong to it?  And the SUpremes have already set viability--the point at which the etus has a good chance of surviving outside the womb--as the point at which the state can step in.

                  The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

                  by irishwitch on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:52:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  The equivalent is forcing people to donate their (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CherryTheTart, tardis10, Sharoney

              organs because, after all, there are living people who WILL die if you aren't forced to give up one of your kidneys. Can we make you do that or do you have the right to bodily integrity even though someone WILL DIE?

        •  not your body - not your choice (13+ / 0-)

          end of debate :)

          Yes, it is bread we fight for - but we fight for roses, too! Sick of the endless battles, namecalling and hostility? Join Courtesy Kos -- A group dedicated to respect and civility.

          by rexymeteorite on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:11:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you or I have the unilateral right to decide (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Radiowalla, ShaunMcDonnell

            to end another human life?  

            I think the answer to that question, in the abstract, is no.  I know of no one who supports the proposition that one person has the unilateral right to end another human life.  

            So, the question is, is a fetus a separate human life?  

            If your answer to the question  is "no," then it is the end of the debate.  If your answer to that question is "yes," the debate is FAR from "ended."  

            It is only "end of debate" for people who agree with you on the underlying question of whether a fetus is a separate human life.    

            •  Most abortions are done before the fetus is (8+ / 0-)

              viable.  Your question is not even a question until about the 24 to 28 weeks of pregnancy.   Unfortunately that is not the discussion we are having.  It is about a woman's right to decide whether she wants to be a mother or not and to manage that choice for herself.  

              •  You are assuming that viability signals the (0+ / 0-)

                beginning of human life.  Why is that?  

                Why not, for example, when science can detect brain waves? Doesn't the end of brain activity generally signal the end of human life (when someone is "brain dead," they are generally removed from the devices keeping the lungs and heart functioning)?  If the end of brain activity signals the end of human life, why doesn't the beginning of brain activity signal the beginning of human life?  Or why doesn't the beginning of heart functioning -- the "heartbeat" signal the beginning of human life?  Or why doesn't independent fetal movement -- what used to be referred to as "quickening" -- signal that there is a separate human life?  

                The only reason that we have the notion that viability is the beginning of human life is that Justice Blackmun and others on the SCOTUS saw it as sort of a "compromise" position, that would give something to both sides (as the SCOTUS has sometimes done with contentious issues -- think the phrase "all deliberate speech" in Brown v. Board of Education).  That doesn't end the moral/philosophical/religious debate.  

                •  okay, let me boil this down for you. (14+ / 0-)

                  Are you able to have a baby?

                  If yes -- don't get an abortion! You don't have to! Really it is up to you!

                  If no -- Why does all this bullshit about brainwaves matter? It ain't your body, it ain't your choice. Period.

                  Yes, it is bread we fight for - but we fight for roses, too! Sick of the endless battles, namecalling and hostility? Join Courtesy Kos -- A group dedicated to respect and civility.

                  by rexymeteorite on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:48:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  No, if a fetus cannot live outside a women's (8+ / 0-)

                  body(even with assistance, hence the 24 to 28) weeks, it is a moot argument.  We will soon be able to grow hearts in a petri dish, does that make that heart a human being.  We are more than the sum of our parts.  A fetus has to be viable as a separate entity before it can claim that right or that right can be claimed for it.  Maybe someday we will grow children to maturity in a dish but until then a woman's choice has got to take precedence.  She is not a petri dish or an incubator.

                  •  Exactly my point. (0+ / 0-)

                    You have made a moral/philosophical argument as to when a fetus is a separate human life.  You have made the argument that viability is when a separate human life starts.  

                    Others can make similar arguments for other points, as I said.  It is not a given that only those bodies capable of surviving on their own constitute human life.  Think of what that kind of assumption -- that human life is defined as the body's capability of surviving on its own -- would mean for end of life care.

                    •  You want to force women to be incubators at the (13+ / 0-)

                      expense of their choices and their health.  You are choosing to make the woman subservient to the fetus.  In your argument she ceases to exist in the equation once she becomes pregnant even before that choice is necessary.   As far as end of life, that should also be a person's choice, I also believe in the right to die.  

                      •  Dead on. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        CherryTheTart, tardis10, Sharoney

                        The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

                        by irishwitch on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:54:31 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Correct (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        julifolo, CherryTheTart, Clues, Sharoney

                        and you raise an interesting Constitutional point.

                        There is nothing in Law, or in the Constitution, that compels one citizen to care for another. Indeed, such a law would be reprehensible.

                        Parents cannot even be compelled to care for their born children, they can only be punished for neglecting them. They are entirely free to hand their care over to other competent adults.

                        So here we have a slippery slope. If we refuse abortion next we bow to demands to punish women who drink, smoke, drive carelessly  ....  generally don't take care of their pregnant selves. Yet we provide nothing to ensure this can be done .... We jail pregnant women for harming her unborn child or, if she miscarries, we execute her for murder.

                        You may think this all fanciful ... but all of it has been suggested in various places, and the fundies will stop at nothing to impose their will.

                        Women can and should have the right to choose not to carry a pregnancy to term ... In fact they do have that right ... any other framing is bollocks.

                        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                        by twigg on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:39:07 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  In USA, women have been put in jail (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Sharoney

                          (poor women, of course) because medical or police people didn't approve of her actions, using RvW as the justification.

                          Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                          by julifolo on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:45:48 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  You are missing your own point (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      julifolo, Sharoney

                      If there is a moral/philosophical judgement to be made, then the woman gets to own that judgement.  You do not get to impose your own moral/religious/philosophical judgements on other people.

                      Others can make similar arguments for other points, as I said.  
                      And they do.  Everyone has the right to make their own moral judgements for their own bodies.  What you don't get is the right to make moral judgements for someone else's body.
                •  well right now (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Kentucky DeanDemocrat

                  the law of the land says viability signals it because third trimester abortions are generally not protected with some exceptions.

                •  Debate this all you want, (8+ / 0-)

                  but in the end you have to give value to the life and free will of the mother.  It isn't just the fetus who has rights.   Pregnant women are not passive vessels.

                  We are talking about making and enforcing laws governing whether a woman should bring every pregnancy to term, regardless of her wishes.

                  I say it should be up to her.  That makes me pro-choice.  

                  It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

                  by Radiowalla on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 03:06:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, I do. (17+ / 0-)

              If there is something in my uterus and I don't want it to be there then it is absolutely and solely my right to decide to evict it. No matter how long it's been there, no matter how another person feels about whatever it is I'm evicting, no other argument holds any authority aside from, "It's MY body and I will decide what happens to (or in) it."  If you think you can rescue my uterus contents and grow it into something, you go right ahead and do that. But if you need me to be an incubator for it, you can fuck right the hell off. I'm a person, not an appliance.

              If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you think contraception is eeeevil, don't use it. If you think cosmetic surgery is grotesque (I sure do!) don't have any. You have 100% rights over YOUR bodily autonomy, and I have 100% rights over mine. I have ZERO rights over your autonomy and you have ZERO rights over mine. MYOB.

              Get how this works yet? Stop flailing over sanctity of life and all that other shit that's only in YOUR head. YOU don't get to decide someone else's regard for life's sanctity or lack thereof. MYOB.

              Got it?

              "Nothing's wrong, son, look at the news!" -- Firesign Theater

              by SmartAleq on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:34:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  yup (13+ / 0-)

                I am a male, so this shit is easy for me. I can't have a baby, I don't get a say. I mean, my GF could take my opinion into consideration if she happens to get pregnant (which she most likely wont because she has free access to birth control, thank you Planned Parenthood!), but that is up to her too and a different issue entirely. I should have absolutely no say in any official manner, because it ain't my body. I can't get pregnant, I will never know what its like to have a child, why the fuck should I, of all people, have a say in what a woman does with her (potential) child, or body? I have none.

                Although, if asked, my default position though is pro-choice. I love my girlfriend (future wife!) -- Why the hell would I want one of HER options taken away from her?

                Yes, it is bread we fight for - but we fight for roses, too! Sick of the endless battles, namecalling and hostility? Join Courtesy Kos -- A group dedicated to respect and civility.

                by rexymeteorite on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:47:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The sexiest man in the world (11+ / 0-)

                  ... is a prochoice man.

                  I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

                  by CherryTheTart on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:53:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Add to what Cherry said: (6+ / 0-)

                  Not only is the sexiest man a prochoice man....

                  Evoking different feelings, the man one can both love and respect is the man who helps take care of any child(ren) he fathers.

                  I'm highly prejudiced in my opinion regarding fatherhood.  I'm old, so have the experience to say this.  My father never, ever, not even once, in his life yelled at or spanked either my brother or myself (and heaven help the person who might have even thought of harming one of his grandkids up there on the pedestals where he put them with such loving care).  Although he died in 1975 at the age of 55, my father remains the kindest, most loving, gentle, considerate, generous, wonderful, thoughtful man I ever knew or met in my entire (so far) 66 years of life.

                  When I became an adult, he called me a woman - a fact I didn't quite realize until he'd been long dead, but I had to dredge through every memory to recall that fact.  As his daughter, he would have been the only man who would have been entitled to call me 'girl' all of my life since I was 'his girl.'  Still, he treated me with both love and respect.  He may have learned to treat women well from his mother; she was the mother of eight who lived to adulthood (bore 13 children; some died in infancy or were stillborn), and she was a midwife, so helped many women bring children into the world.  Her grandmother was a midwife before her, too.

                  Every child (girl or boy) should be so lucky as to have the kind of father my brother and I had.  My brother is very like our father, and his children and grandchildren adore him.  When I hear about children who have been mistreated in many ways by their fathers or grandfathers, it makes me weep in frustration because I know everyone should have been as lucky as I was with having a loving and gentle father.

                  No, I'm not idealizing him.  Really, there are no words adequate enough to describe the loving human being he was besides being my father.  He truly was that good a human being, and an even better father.

                  Be a good father to any children and grandchildren you may want and have, and they'll grow up to be old like me and look back on their childhoods with smiles and love and hold you in high esteem for as long as they live.

                  I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

                  by NonnyO on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 03:51:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, the State does. (0+ / 0-)
                YOU don't get to decide someone else's regard for life's sanctity or lack thereof
                The State clearly has an interest in protecting one human being from being killed by another human being.  

                If -- the big assumption -- the fetus is a separate human being, then the State absolutely has an interest in protecting the life of that human being, just like it has an interest in protecting the life of a newborn.  A mother can't give birth (say, in a remote location) and then say, I can abandon that baby here if I want, because I get to make decisions about my body, and what I want to do.  The mother can't say, I don't think it's a real human life until it is six weeks old, because   That's a crime.   The State passes laws saying that the mother has a legal obligation to take steps to preserve the life of that child (at the very least, leaving it somewhere where others will assume responsibility for preserving that life).  Because the state has an interest in preserving that human life, regardless of the mother's lack of regard for the sanctity of that life.  The mother doesn't get to say,  "I don't believe a day-old newborn is a real human being.  You don't get a say over MY regard for the sanctity of life -- MYOB."  The reason the State steps in, in this situation, is simple -- once the woman has given birth, there is a separate human life involved.  If there is a separate human life involved -- distinct from the mother's life, then it DOES become the business of others -- the State.  Absolutely.  

                If -- and here's the big if -- you believe that a fetus is a separate human life, then it logically follows that  the State absolutely has an interest in preserving that human life.  (Roe v. Wade said as much, saying that after viability -- when the fetus had its own "interests" distinct from those of the woman -- the State can pass laws designed to protect the life of the fetus.)  

                So, if there is a separate human life involved, your position makes no sense. There are LOTS of instances when the State steps in to protect the life of someone who can't protect themselves from a person who has no regard for the sanctity of that human life.  

                Get how this works yet? Stop flailing over sanctity of life and all that other shit that's only in YOUR head. YOU don't get to decide someone else's regard for life's sanctity or lack thereof. MYOB.
                This rant is based on YOUR assumption that there is only one life involved.  I completely understand that.  And -- given your assumption  that there is only one life involved -- your position makes absolute sense.  In fact, given the assumption that only one human life is involved, your position is the ONLY rational, and logical, position.  My point is that, with a different assumption as to whether a fetus is a separate life, all of that changes.  
                •  No, it doesn't. (12+ / 0-)

                  YOUR belief that a fetus has a separate existence other than the mother is only applicable to YOUR fetus, growing in YOUR uterus. If you have no fetus, or no uterus, you have no rights over, nor valid opinion regarding, the hypothetical fetus in the uterus of another person. The sooner everybody figures this out and stops endlessly whinging on about shit that DOES NOT APPLY the sooner we'll get some fucking rationality in this country.

                  As long as it's a fetus inside a uterus, the uterus owner has the only say in what happens. After the live fetus exits said uterus, other issues may apply. Up to that point, no matter how many hypotheticals you conjure up or how many appeals to authority logical fallacies you dredge up you are still in the wrong. NOBODY has a say in what happens to a fetus until it has a separate existence from the mother. If she chooses to evict it that's up to her, and to nobody else.

                  Again, MYOB is the entire message here. Tend to your knitting. Remove the beam from thine eye before you start worrying about the mote in the eye of the person next to you. Butt OUT, this does not concern you. How many more ways are there to tell someone to refrain from sticking their nose where it doesn't belong?

                  "Nothing's wrong, son, look at the news!" -- Firesign Theater

                  by SmartAleq on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:12:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I completely understand your position. (0+ / 0-)

                    and, if you believe that the fetus is not a separate human life, it is the ONLY logical, rational, and defensible position. If you believe that a fetus is not a human life, you are absolutely, positively, unquestionably, without a doubt, correct.  If a fetus is not a separate human life, it is nobody's business but mine what I do about my pregnancy.  Unquestionably.  Indisputably.  There's no rational argument otherwise.  

                    My only point is that your position is based on an assumption that a fetus is not a separate human life.  

                    I don't know why you find that difficult to understand.
                     

                    •  It is NOT an assumption. (6+ / 0-)

                      As long as the fetus is getting nutrition through an umbilical cord, that is attached to a placenta, that is attached to a uterus, that is completely encompassed by a living human woman, that fetus has NO independent existence. If you take it out and it dies, that kinda proves the point, don't it? And once you take it out, it becomes a separate entity. Once the umbilical cord is cut and the placenta expelled, the fetus then, AND ONLY THEN, becomes a separate person. The fact that it MIGHT be able to exist on its own is irrelevant while it's still inside the mother. She is extending her suffrance to its continued presence in her body. If she revokes that suffrance, regardless of her reason or the time elapsed since the blastocyst first divided, or any other argument that can be brought to bear, then she may do so. If, after she revokes the invitation the fetus manages to survive on its own then great, we can talk about its rights. Up until that point it's a parasite, subject to the vicissitudes of parasitic existence.

                      This is not an assumption, it's a fact. Sorry if the facts are inconvenient, but then facts quite often are.

                      "Nothing's wrong, son, look at the news!" -- Firesign Theater

                      by SmartAleq on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 04:39:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The scientific facts are unarguable. (0+ / 0-)

                        What is debatable is what makes life (a zygote is "alive") human life?

                        There is no scientific definition of what makes life a human life.  

                        For you, apparently, it is the act of birth that turns a fetus into a HUMAN life.  That is a rational, logical position, but it is not a "fact" -- because what makes a life a HUMAN life is not  a fact-based issue.  It's based on what you believe makes us human.  And I am NOT SAYING that you are wrong.  I CANNOT say that you are wrong -- if you believe that humanity is defined by the act of birth, or by the physical ability to survive without assistance of others, that is certainly, certainly, a legitimate and rational viewpoint.  I simply am pointing out that the view that humanity is defined by the act of birth, and ONLY by the act of birth, is central to your position.  

                        Of course, your view that there is no separate human life until birth is, I think, a distinctly minority view -- Roe v. Wade rejected it.  And as a woman that has given birth, I would disagree with you as well.  I think that, a day before birth, I regarded each of my children as a separate human life.  If, for example, someone had attacked me the day before my children were born with the intent of destroying the fetus, I would have considered that something more like the murder of my child.  I do not think I would have viewed it as nothing more than an assault on me.  In other words, as a woman who has given birth, I think that at SOME point prior to birth, I regarded each of my children as a separate human life.  I don't think that this is somehow "factually wrong," as you imply.  It is not a factual issue at all.  

                        I think that most people in this country believe that at SOME point prior to the actual moment of birth, there is a separate human life to consider.  Certainly, that is the law of the land, as expressed by Roe and subsequent cases-- that at SOME point prior to birth, the State can consider the "interests" of this separate human life.  The moral/philosophical/religious issue is what benchmark do we use to designate that.  It is  rational to argue (as Roe did) that when the fetus is able to survive without dependence on another, THAT is the benchmark we should use to designate when the fetus becomes not just "life" but "human life" -- i.e., a human life distinct from that of the woman who carries it.  It is also rational to argue (if you believe that brain activity is what designates HUMAN life as opposed to life) that separate and distinct brain activity represents the presence of a human life, albeit one that is dependent on another for its continued viability.    It is also rational to argue that separate and independent movement -- what used to be called "quickening" is the event that means that "life" has become a separate human life.  There is no "fact" that said our humanity is defined by whether we are able to breathe without the aid of others.  

                        I completely agree with you on the FACTS about what happens before birth, and the FACTS about what happens at birth.  Where I disagree with you is your notion that the question of what constitutes a  HUMAN life, distinct from the life of the woman who carries it, is a factual question.  I do not think it is, because there is no "fact-based" definition of what constitutes human life as opposed to other kinds of life.  I think that the question of when life -- a fetus -- becomes a human life is a moral/philosophical/religious question, not a fact question.  

                        •  If it's a moral question-- (4+ / 0-)

                          and religions and philosophers disagree ont he answer--then the only just solution is to allow the individual to decide for herself. Otherwise you are violating the first amendment by preferring one religious group over another which violates the first amendment.

                          The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

                          by irishwitch on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:57:39 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  The problem with that logic is that it (0+ / 0-)

                            doesn't wash for any other situation.  Just because an individual thinks it is morally acceptable to kill his kid for being gay, for instance, doesn't mean that the State should remain neutral on whether or not it's acceptable, given that there may be disagreement on the question based on religious/philosophical views.  No one is allowed to commit human sacrifice these days to fulfill religious creeds.  Is that violating their first amendment rights?

                            The simple fact of this whole debate is that you cannot convince people who genuinely believe that a fetus is a human life and that aborting it is tantamount to murder to just shrug and step aside by saying, "it's my body, I can do what I want with it."  They would no more do that than you or I would just shrug and step aside for people trying to kill their kids for being gay.

                          •  It's a rights mvt, & we're fighting for our lives (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SmartAleq, CherryTheTart, Sharoney

                            And it's not right that pregnant women are treated 2nd class. People who think women are only good for incubators, that needs to be pushed back.

                            Childbirth was genegineered to be dangerous by evolution (the survival benifit of larger brain), and you'd think a society that wants to think of itself as good and fair would give women a break (because, unlike biology, there's free will involved). But no. Most cultures take advantage. So it's up to women and people who trust them to fight back and get rights.

                            Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                            by julifolo on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:56:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I agree pregnant women shouldn't (0+ / 0-)

                            be treated like second class.  I agree that women should have the full right to choose.  

                            I'm just saying that arguing that, "it's my body and I can do what I want with it" isn't going to "end" any debate or convince people who believe abortion is murdering a baby to stand down.  

                          •  You can't convince religious types of anything. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            julifolo, Sharoney

                            Facts make no impression upon them because "I'm a (Mormon in the lyrics but it could be any authoritarian faith) and I believe!".

                            There is one difference between abortion and murdering your child because he's gay: the child is already recognized int he constitution as a separate person. He  lives autonomously, breathing, thinking, eating etc on his own.  There is no controversy about his personhood.  A fetus? LOTS of disagreement.

                            The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

                            by irishwitch on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:05:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Roe v. Wade says that personhood (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Americantrueandblue

                            begins with viability, not birth.  So, according to the SCOTUS precedent that is the law of the land, an unborn child can be deemed just as much a human being as a born one, under our Constitution.  The Constitution does not define "personhood" for anybody at all, actually.  And the fact that there is "disagreement" over the issue doesn't suddenly render the State unable to take a position--Roe v. Wade, in fact, explicitly says it can!

                            As has been noted by others, the definition of when exactly a fetus becomes a live human being is not in any way something that is a fact.  It is a moral/philosophical question, not a scientific one.  While your morality or philosophical point of view may be, in your mind, 100% rational, logical and air-tight, the question comes down to all parties accepting the same premise as to when life begins.  And it is categorically impossible to change many people's minds on that, yes.  But that doesn't render their point of view on the matter any less valid than yours or mine.

                          •  That viable fetus is capable of independent (0+ / 0-)

                            life outside the womb.

                            All parties will never agree on this because we're dealing with idiots who think masturbation is a crime and sex before marriage is a mortal sin and, frankly,if you cave to their beleifs, you ARE placing their belief system, their religion, above all others--which really comes close to violating the first amendment. Roe was based,a t least, on somethign based in science: the ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb.  THAT is fact, not religious beelif.

                            The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

                            by irishwitch on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:22:40 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The problem is that "viability" is also subjective (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Americantrueandblue

                            If one define's "viability" as being able to survive with medical assistance (ventilators, incubators, etc.) outside the womb, that moves the viability threshhold up dramatically.

                            And even without assistance, viability isn't an exact science.  There's not a turkey button that pops up saying "done," after all.  Even someone who accepts viability as the cutoff would have to admit that since we don't know exactly when a fetus becomes viable, there is the grey area where an abortion could destroy a viable fetus.  It's not nearly the clear-cut "fact" you present.

                            Look, we agree on being pro-choice.  I'm just saying that any attempt to turn this into a simple or easy moral question for everyone is futile.  And dismissing the moral viewpoints of those who believe abortion is murder as "idiotic" or "crazy" isn't going to solve the issue.  There's nothing "violating the first amendment" in acknowledging the basic fact that the notion of precisely when life begins is not a hard, scientific fact and that people's beliefs on the matter are moral/philosophical, not scientific.  You're trying to shut down debate yourself by accusing others of "violating first amendment," which is contradictory, isn't it?

                  •  Yes, espeically since pregnancy is dangerous by (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SmartAleq, CherryTheTart, Sharoney

                    biological design. (Big heads are what killed most women pre-modern medicine, but the genes breed true because larger brain size is such a survival enhancer.)

                    People who argue that it's appropriate to make it a society decision are OK with women are/should be 2nd class.

                    This after biology has made a unilateral "the greatest good for the greatest number" on human females. You'd hope that a society with free will (unlike evolution) -- if that wants to be considered "fair" that society would give women a break. Nope. Almost all modern societies take advantage.

                    Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                    by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 04:31:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  The question is, who gets to decide? n/t (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CherryTheTart, LSophia

              "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

              by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 03:18:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  You're missing the point here (22+ / 0-)

      intentionally or not, I can't say.

      The issue is, not whether any category of  abortion is wrong. Any one woman can say (for herself) "before three months, but not after" or whatever her choice is, and, as long as she runs her life by her own rules, it's no skin off anyone's nose but her own. The issue here is what to do about the people who are vociferously eager to step in and run women's lives as these outsiders think a woman "ought to" live. That's nobody's business but the woman's own.

      Radarlady

    •  Oh, goody!! A know-it-all, (16+ / 0-)

      blessed with supreme knowledge about others' reproductive choices!!

      HAIL, mighty oracle...

      It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

      by karmsy on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:56:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So (6+ / 0-)

      you are ignoring that, at one time, the church decreed that a baby was not a person until it received a "soul" and that did not happen until a month after birth. And, that changed to a baby is not a person until birth. And both of these supported the belief that the of a baby or a fetus was not "murder" because the fetus / baby had no soul. Until you yahoos came along, the church had settled on the decision that a fetus was not a person until it was born and drew its first breath, unaided.

      But here you come along, trying to use your everchanging religion, to label abortion as murder.

      Read and do Matthew 7: 1-5.
      And GTFOOH

      "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

      by azureblue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:11:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You know nothing of my religious beliefs (0+ / 0-)

        Nor did I label anything murder. But I will assume that since you chose not to answer the question (or anything in the comment), and instead chose to insert words in my mouth, that you really do not have anything to say on the subject.

        Other than to ask me to get the fuck out of the diary. I guess that is what it means to end the debate, tell everyone else to GTFOOH.

        •  There is no debate! MY body, my choice. (10+ / 0-)

          See, this is so simple.

          You can believe whatever you want and I can too.

          •  but when is it "his/hers body", and not yours? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wee Mama, pfiore8

            At some point, the transition from not-a-person to is-a-person takes place. Your body is your own. Another person's body is their own, as well. At some point, there are two persons, with two bodies to consider. Not just one person, with one body.

            What is that point?

            Less "WAAAAH!", more progress.

            by IndyGlenn on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:22:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Does not matter to the question about (6+ / 0-)

              whose choice it is to alter the situation.

              When everyone makes a decision on when the fetus is a separate person, educate others and they may not abort.

              If most decide the fetus cannot be aborted after a certain time, then you won't find a doctor to do it and that is the only law we need on this issue. Society will decide, not government intrusion.

              •  if you have a right to control your body, (0+ / 0-)

                so does this new person. It's the same right. All we need to do is figure out when not-a-person changes to is-a-person, and then everyone's right to their body gets consideration. We will never get unanimous agreement on this transition (nor on anything else, really), but society will come to a consensus and make a law.

                It's our duty a citizens to see that these laws are as fair and just as we can come up with.

                Less "WAAAAH!", more progress.

                by IndyGlenn on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 05:12:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Birth. eom (8+ / 0-)

              I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

              by CherryTheTart on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:30:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's not a winning argument (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ShaunMcDonnell, pfiore8

                Saying that UNTIL the fetus is viable, there is nothing to discuss IS an argument that cannot be defeated.

                Saying that after viability, a woman STILL has no obligation to think about that viable fetus as well as her own desires to no longer be an unwilling incubator? That argument doesn't work nearly so well.

                Yes, of course a woman shouldn't have her rights to control her own body subverted by a non-viable fetus. The non-viable fetus' right to control her body should never be superior to her own right to control her own body.

                But in our society, ALL THE TIME, we have to weigh competing rights. You have the right to kill someone in self-defense if you have no other recourse - but in general, one doesn't don't have the right to kill someone if you have other recourse for escape and save yourself. You have the right to shoot a gun where you can be assured that you won't be threatening another person, but you don't have the right to shoot it off in the middle of the city without consequence, because of the risk to another person.

                And so ignoring that the viability of a fetus CAN be a legitimate point of dispute isn't the way to win this argument.

                Of course there are times when a woman should be able to choose to abort even a viable fetus - but to say that there's a blanket right after viability isn't going to work.

                I personally feel that women should be able to have abortions at any time. I don't think that a viable fetus' "rights" should EVER take precedent over a woman's right to control her own body - but that doesn't mean that arguing THAT way will end the abortion debate. It won't. And that's because there's a legit argument to be made that viability makes a difference.

                But this argument is incontrovertible IF you make it with respect to non-viable fetuses only.

                •  #20 (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  NonnyO, pot, tardis10

                  Give up learning:
                  You will no no anxieties.
                  How much difference is there
                  Between ah and oh?
                  How much difference is there
                  Between god and evil?
                  What men fear
                  Must I fear?
                  Utter nonsense!
                  All men are happy happy,
                  As if consuming sacrificial feasts,
                  As if mounting the Spring Terrace.
                  I alone am mild
                  Like one who gives no sign,
                  Like an infant who does not smile,
                  Forlorn like one with no place to go.
                  All men have plenty;
                  I alone am a loser
                  A fool at heart indeed!
                  The world's people are bright bright;
                  I alone am dull dull.
                  The world's people are smart smart;
                  I alone am low low,
                  Bland as the sea,
                  Aimless as the wind.
                  All men have their uses;
                  I alone am stubborn and uncouth.
                  But I differ most from the others
                  In prizing food drawn from my Mother.

                  I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

                  by CherryTheTart on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:43:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What does this have to do with what I wrote? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    pfiore8

                    Your argument, the position you say will end all debate, doesn't, in fact, end the debate, and that's because you ignore that an argument CAN BE made that a viable fetus has some rights.

                    One does NOT have unlimited rights to do whatever one wants to do with one's body. One can NOT legitimately claim, for example, that one can swing one's arms wildly about, and if one's arms impact another person? Oh well, I have the right to swing my arms - if my fist happened to impact another person, that's THEIR problem, not mine?

                    That's not the way the world works. The way our lives impact others IS a relevant thing that society looks at.

                    •  Fetuses aren't people. (11+ / 0-)

                      Your argument is invalid. Up to the point where someone else can pick it up and take it into another room it's just another part of a woman, and if she chooses to remove it from herself that's her right. You might not like it, but that's tough shit. MYOB.

                      "Nothing's wrong, son, look at the news!" -- Firesign Theater

                      by SmartAleq on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:39:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Again, it's not MY argument (0+ / 0-)

                        It is AN argument, and fetuses that are viable ARE treated differently than fetuses that are not viable.

                        I PERSONALLY think that a woman should be able to have an abortion, for any reason, at any time she wants to.

                        Too bad you totally missed that.

                        And again, one does NOT have unlimited rights to do whatever they want without concern for anyone else, and so it IS possible to argue that a viable fetus should be given some consideration. It's NOT possible to argue that a nonviable fetus should be given some consideration, since if they left the womb, they couldn't sustain life.

                •  you use "viable" (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CherryTheTart

                  for a reason. It means not living yet.

                  and I wait for them to interrupt my drinking from this broken cup

                  by le sequoit on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:58:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  viable is when independent life can begin (0+ / 0-)

                    A viable fetus is one that can reasonably survive on its own. I'd say that qualifies as "living". I want to define personhood based on the attributes of the potential person, not just where they happen to be residing at the moment.

                    If a fetus in the womb "wakes up" and is now conscious of self, and could potentially survive on it's own, the fact that he/she is still in the womb is now secondary. We have a new person in the world. The balance between the rights of the person who's providing the womb and the person who's still living in it becomes an insanely complicated question.

                    One possible answer to "not-a-person/is-a-person" that people really, really don't like to think about is the possibility that personhood starts sometime after birth. If the fetus does not "wake up" until some significant time after birth, then newborns are not yet persons, and are still mobile lumps of tissue without rights. Go ahead, make THAT argument. Just let me put in earplugs first.

                    That;s why viability is such a common definition. It easily sidesteps the whole issue of consciousness and awareness of the fetus, and shifts the definition to one of independent survival. It don't matter if you're "awake", it matters if you're out in the world screaming to be fed.

                    Less "WAAAAH!", more progress.

                    by IndyGlenn on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 05:39:52 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  It has the virtue of simplicity. (0+ / 0-)

                Unfortunately, our modern world is not simple. Natural birth, or medically-assisted 'premature' birth? We can now deliver preemies who go on to survive with no complications far earlier than before. Unfortunately, we can also deliver preemies who have great difficulty finishing their natural development. Too early, and the chances of survival drop drastically (but not to zero) and the chances of significant disabilities goes up just as drastically. Is this an acceptable birth, or not? Who is a person, and entitled to tremendous amounts of support, and what is just tissue, subject to the control of the host?

                Less "WAAAAH!", more progress.

                by IndyGlenn on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 05:19:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  you got cornered (3+ / 0-)

          and now you're parsing and backtracking....

          "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

          by azureblue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:11:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  hello 1918. (0+ / 0-)

          thanks for your question and your interest.

          i am pro choice, but an on-demand abortion at 8 months (predominantly viable and at that point a baby, a life) would be a stretch for me ... because it's hard to understand how somebody gets that far and then decides to end a pregnancy (unless there pops up an urgent medical reason putting the mother at risk or something extraordinary).

          to take it further, i think it is radical in the wrong direction and endangers pro-choice.

          it's too bad that we can't have a full fleshed out discussion on this... it isn't black and white and unless we run up against contrasting views, we can't possibly fully understand this issue and how we feel.

          we need to be subjected to pros and cons and devils' advocates.

          •  Medical standards & 8 mos. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tardis10, Sharoney

            I think a good doctor in a good hospital presented with such a demand, it would be red flags for a mental health issue. Dr. Tiller, for instance, didn't do it. I remember reading reports of how he helped girls who were too far along (a combination of access problems and denial, I'm assuming) by some sort of network of people willing to support the girls until the baby was born & work out next steps.

            Pragmatically, doctors would be rightly frightened of an anti-abortion trap. Someone whose "only moral abortion is my abortion" might turn around after the problem is safely dealt with, have a post-abortion change of heart, and try to have the doctor's lisense taken away or the doctor put in prison.

            Again, I think medical standards are more appropriate for late abortion than laws.

            Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

            by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:42:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  but at 8 months, is it an abortion? (0+ / 0-)

              it's a fair question. in my view, it's no longer terminating a pregnancy, but a child in the womb.

              and i realize my comment above made room for medical threat to the mother, but after i wrote it i realized that is a conditioned response... at 8 months, doctors could take the baby by inducing labor or c-section and the mother could simply the baby give up for adoption.

              I think Dr. Tiller did the right thing.

              And the medical standard might become translated into law and I can understand that. it is, in fact, fair.

              •  Shouldn't be transfered into law (but is in USA) (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CherryTheTart, Sharoney

                ie, TRAP laws, which are in no way medical standards, but are attempts to put clinics that include abortion out of business.

                States liscense doctors, for the public good. But the actual standards should be worked out by medical people, not politicians with a political agenda. (see Canada: has no abortion laws, just medical standards, and Canada doesn't have Gosnell scandals)

                Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                by julifolo on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:01:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  i like law (0+ / 0-)

                  secular law. medical doctors should not hold that kind of power... they have to represent standards codified in law.

                  the thing to change is how we view politics and office holders: we talk about winning elections and power... i'd like to see people seeking to become elected to serve...

                  change the dynamics... change the conversation... i think some of the reactions in this diary aren't real expressions of what these people would do, truly confronted with "aborting" and 8-month old in the womb. i think it's reactionary against the equally alarming rhetoric on the right and their definition of freedom as imposing their religious views on me and in our laws.

                  i get that. but advocating on demand abortion no matter what doesn't get us anywhere close to opening up dialogue. ultimately, this about learning to live next door to each other in a secular country and how we need to think differently and explore other approaches in order to find ways to accomplish it... with necessary accommodations on all sides.

                  i know we libruls are supposed to be the intellects and the open minded ones... but truly, i don't see it. we want our way and make cartoons out of the others... without appreciating how committed they are and how important their world views are to them... this is why they vote as they do. not based on economics. we make that mistake, thinking they vote against their own self interest. no. they vote for those who confirm their world view and themselves in it.

                  •  I don't live in Canada so I don't know for sure (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Wee Mama

                    but I believe their system works better. If there were Gosnell scandals happening in Canada, Life Site would tell me about them.

                    I don't start out supporting "on demand for 8 mo". When I'm talking with someone who wants to end abortion and they challenge me, I say I'm not for "no" limits, I'm for "medical standards".

                    And they accuse me of supporting "on demand until the last moment" and I push back, saying that's a misrepresentation, and explain why. And I don't deal in cartoons.

                    I keep brining Canada up, because the people I debate can't get around Canada. Here they are telling me there's such a problem and these laws are needed ... and I reply that their laws make the problem worse, look at the record in Canada.

                    Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                    by julifolo on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:57:47 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  I wonder if the emotional reaction (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            julifolo

            that is commonly felt to a wholly elective abortion at eight months derives in part from an unconscious sense that "silence gives consent"? That is, that a woman who has carried a pregnancy for eight months without taking any steps to end it has by her actions implicitly given the fetus that is being carried a commitment to carry to term. Not advocating this here, just trying to explore common emotional reactions and trying to probe their roots -

            Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

            by Wee Mama on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:50:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i think there are at least two things (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              julifolo

              an emotional reaction and a moral/ethical reaction.

              i am not comfortable at 5 or 6 months, but understand situations can arise that force one's decision (including trying to find a doctor to terminate one's pregnancy).

              but 7/8 months? is it also okay at 9 months before delivery?

              i think there is a cut off point for an abortion. the lady with whom i had the discussion talks about medical standards, but they aren't uniform and if we have to worry about pharmacists not providing birth control pills (which is ridiculous) for religious reasons, I'd say I would NOT leave pro choice in the hands of the medical community.

              this is a civil issue. we can't get around that. we are the ones making the decisions with imput from science and medicine. but it isn't up to the medical community. it is up to us and how we craft our (SECULAR) law.

              and at 8 months, even when the pregnancy is life-threatening, the baby can be delivered rather than terminated. or if the mother does not want or can not care for the child, then up for adoption... but there are so many variables... is the mother healthy? has there been abuse or drugs? is the baby healthy? and will someone adopt such a baby?

              sometimes life is just too complicated.

              •  Life can be very complicated. (0+ / 0-)

                Most vexatious, to those who need black and white answers.

                Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                by Wee Mama on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:20:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  i'd say those looking (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wee Mama, julifolo

                  for black and white answers typically find them... it's the rest of us writhing in uncertainty.

                  i'm looking at your sig line... and respect the dignity of every human being

                  what do you think about late term abortions in the last trimester? is a baby a baby at eight months? or only after being delivered?

                  the other thing i have to wonder: how often does somebody who's gone for 8 months seek an abortion? which brings us back to your question: is there something implied or committed to by carrying a pregnancy into the 8th month?

                  quite honestly, i've never heard/thought of it until this discussion. and i have friends and nieces/nephews born in the 8th month... as well, i've had one friend who had an abortion performed in the 5th month and that was tough for her and the circumstances were confused and crazy; we stood with her and by her... i don't think anybody makes that decision without a hard struggle.  

                  •  My view on the ethical aspect of abortion (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Wee Mama

                    is that once a decision is made, the pregnant woman ought to schedule an elective abortion as soon as possible. When there are barriers to access (TRAP laws, expense) then it's more on the anti-abortion politicians than the woman.

                    And I do think pregnancies that have a crisis in the 8th month, I think what happens is inducing labor or cesarean rather than abortion.

                    And then there's the situation of Downs an other not-immediately-fatal-but-handicapped. If the state has an interest in protecting such fetuses against abortion or birth-induced-before-viability ... crap, the state can stop spending money on illegal/imoral wars & the prison industrial complex, and spend my taxmoney on furthering the public good, not destroying lives. And then there is dumpster babies -- but I don't think there are as many as Life Site likes to imply. (Mothers Kill Their Born Babies All The Time, that's Why They Can't Be Trusted!)

                    In the current state of the deliberately shredded safety net and making it effectively illegal to be poor I can't get angy at any of them. In my view, it's the 1% (especially politicians, & the mega-rich buying legislation) I find immoral.

                    Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                    by julifolo on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 06:19:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  i think i feel like most here: (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      julifolo

                      the state and church have NO business in my bedroom or in my doctor's office. they have no business in my personal decisions. and i think that should expressed in civil law under privacy and civil right.

                      i also must admit that i believe in biological reasoning and we women don't have abortions on a whim... we, i believe, feel threatened: that needing to care for an infant poses some threat to us, our sustainability and our future ability to have better circumstances in which to bring children. there was, some time ago, a very interesting research done on infanticide as falling into that category...

                      ultimately, here's the point and you've made it:

                      And then there's the situation of Downs an other not-immediately-fatal-but-handicapped. If the state has an interest in protecting such (or any) fetuses against abortion or birth-induced-before-viability ... crap, the state can stop spending money on illegal/imoral wars & the prison industrial complex, and spend my taxmoney on furthering the public good, not destroying lives.
                      if we want to give women options, then let's use our resources to do just that.
                  •  I believe, though I can't give you a cite, that (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    julifolo, pfiore8

                    there are no truly elective abortions in the eighth month. If there is a cataclysm in the pregnancy, such as malignant eclampsia, the baby can be delivered. If there is a fetal death, then it has to be removed but that is not really an abortion. Someone else has mentioned that George Tiller, who had the courage to do second trimester abortions for women who didn't or couldn't know that they needed one earlier, did not do the very late ones but referred the women elsewhere for support.

                    My personal thoughts about abortion are complex and don't fit into any common pigeonhole. When I reflect on the wisdom of the body, the body maintains a vast array of functions in delicate balance. It appears that one of those physiological functions is monitoring and maintaining appropriate pregnancies. The body spontaneously terminates about 80% of all pregnancies when the most sensitive tests are used. The reasons behind these spontaneous abortions include genetic anomalies, maternal stress, and maternal or fetal disease, among others.

                    Though the body is marvellous it is not perfect. Sometimes we need to step in and act when the wisdom of the body falls short. So, we use insulin, eyeglasses, pacemakers and so on.

                    It seems to me that abortion can be thought of in this way as well. Most genetic anomalies will end in a spontaneous abortion; is it stepping past our reasonable autonomy or respect for life to end such a pregnancy if the body misses it in its surveillance? Maternal stress can cause spontaneous abortions; is a medical abortion for the same reason fundamentally different?

                    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                    by Wee Mama on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 07:36:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  You misquoted me. I hate that. (0+ / 0-)

          Now you are accusing others of doing what you actually do.

          Bugger off. You are annoying.

          I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

          by CherryTheTart on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 05:29:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  do you happen to have a cite for that (0+ / 0-)

        month after birth perspective? I haven't run into that before.

        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:29:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  How do you define "on demand?" (17+ / 0-)

      In the eighth month, demand would presumably be associated with a life threatening complication, or fetal death. Week 26 is the outside limit past which so-called "elective" abortion are performed. And in those cases you are dealing with catastrophic genetic malformation or physiological anomalies.

      I hope you are not raising the specter of the 8th month to suggest that there are women who wait all that time, carrying a kicking fetus in their womb, only to somehow "change their mind." There are precisely zero instances of such things happening, so I sincerely hope it was not your intention to suggest such a thing.

      I would hope all of us would object to the state preventing a woman from receiving life-saving care late in pregnancy, if the woman were lucky enough to have the problem identified as a result of adequate prenatal care. I certainly support abortion on demand when the stakes are life and death, as they assuredly are in all real world instances.

    •  No, that's not it at all (5+ / 0-)

      A woman gets to control her own body versus an unviable fetus getting to control her own body.

      So yeah, we can discuss what happens after a fetus is viable - whether that fetus, which could live outside the womb, has the right to force a woman to remain an unwilling incubator for that still-potential human being. Whether a not-yet human being can force a living, breathing human being to become a virtual slave to that still-not-yet-a human being.

      But before viability, there should never be an issue over this - every woman, for whatever reason, should be able to determine that she no longer wants to be an incubator if she isn't willing to do so.

      That's the point I believe the diarist was making.

      And THIS IS AN ARGUMENT THAT RIGHTWINGERS CANNOT WIN.

      It's just not one they can win. Saying that a non-viable fetus should have superior rights to control over a woman's body and the woman herself should have inferior rights to that which some portions of society are saying should be granted to the non-viable fetus? It's an argument that should always fail, and does always fail.

      It is THE argument that should be used. A woman has a right to control her own body, and forcing her to remain pregnant against her will is always, eternally wrong.

    •  What happens... (5+ / 0-)

      ... if pre-eclampsia kills the fetus in the 8th month and a woman's body doesn't naturally expel it?

      Do you favor removing the dead fetus before it kills the mother?

      Is removing a dead fetus really abortion?

      I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

      by NonnyO on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:20:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Where did you read this? (8+ / 0-)

      It is fascinating to see the supposedly pro-life people invoke 'eighth month' all the time as an excuse to deny women the right to choose.

      The GOP is the party of mammon. They mock what Jesus taught.

      by freelunch on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:37:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why does this matter to you? n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NonnyO, Sharoney

      "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 03:20:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, because there are soooo many women (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CherryTheTart, tardis10, Sharoney

      waiting until the very end of a pregnancy to terminate it. Please!

  •  Er (6+ / 0-)
    I include in the set (rapists) those who describe themselves as 'prochoice' whose benevolence includes acting economically and morally to 'make abortion rare.' Bugger off. You are all intrusive, annoying, and perverted in your focus. Mind your own sex organs. I do not want you thinking about or doing anything about mine.
    While I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in your sex organs per se and in fact would prefer not to think too much about them, they are of concern to me insofar as they impact your ability to live a long, healthy, rewarding life, which is why I try to act economically and politically to improve women's access to contraception and reproductive healthcare. This would, as a side effect, probably make abortion (even more) rare.

    I assume that's not a problem, but there's some ambiguity in this part of your rant :)

    "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

    by kyril on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:10:24 AM PDT

  •  I think the way to end the debate (29+ / 0-)

    Is to do what they did to ted haggard.  We have to start publicly outing those conservative women who have abortions or use birth control.  
    This seems wrong and cruel to me but it also seems like the only answer to the cruelty they inflict on millions of women.

    That passed by; this can, too. - Deor

    by stevie avebury on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:10:29 AM PDT

  •  Of course this does not "end" the debate (6+ / 0-)
    My ova, my fetuses, my children and my sexual organs are mine. They are not YOURS. They are not the State's
    Your children are "yours" within limits.  Those limits are, at the very least, physical harm to your children.  If you choose to kill your child, that is very clearly the State's concern.  If you give birth, and then take the newborn to a remote area and abandon the newborn to die, that is most certainly the State's concern.  That is a crime.  

    The only thing that will "end the debate" is to convince half the country that, until the moment of birth, the fetus is not a separate human life.  The only thing that will "end the debate" is to convince half the country that, until the moment of birth, there is only one human life -- the mother's -- at issue, not two.  And, since the definition of when human life begins is a philosophical/moral/religious issue, not a scientific one (inasmuch as it is based on what makes us "human"), good luck with that.

    •  You said: (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dopeman, OldDragon, Pluto, BoxNDox, Lucy2009, NonnyO
      Your children are "yours" within limits.
      You come anywhere near my children without my permissiion and I will make you understand what "mine" means.

      I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

      by CherryTheTart on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:49:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really???? You can kill your toddler and (5+ / 0-)

        the State had better stay out of it?  Is that what you are saying -- that there are no limits whatsoever to your rights over your child?

        So, if you are physically abusing your six year old -- maybe beating her, locking her in a closet with no food, burning her with cigarettes, the State had better stay out of it?  Is that what you are saying?

        Or, if you kill six month old, the State had better stay out of it? Is that what you are saying?  

        Or, if a woman gives birth, and then drowns that newborn in a bathtub, the State had better stay out of it?  Is that what you are saying?  

        I'm a firm, firm believer in the rights of parents to direct the lives of their children. But I also believe that there is an outer limit to that -- and that outer limit is when a parent severely physically harms, or kills, the child.  Do you really disagree with that? Do you think that no matter what you as parent do -- even severely physically harming or killing your child -- the State had better stay out of it?  Really?  Is that what you are saying?  

        Of course the state has an interest in the life of your child.  Of course there are "limits" to what you can do to your child.  It is simply absurd to argue otherwise.

        The question that is at the heart of the debate is whether a fetus is a "child" -- a separate human being.  

        •  oh sheesh... Cherry did NOT say she claimed those (27+ / 0-)

          abusive rights over her child.

          Nor is she championing such rights.

          It's all in your imagination to trump up this bullshit red herring to throw off the discussion she established that said it is NONE of YOUR business to get your rocks off in controlling Cherry's private life. None whatsoever.

          Cherry did not once say that she has the right to abuse a child. Nor anyone else.

          She said for YOU to mind your own business when it comes to HER body and HER privacy and HER life.

          As the old song goes, You can't even run your own life, I'll be damned if you run mine.


          In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

          by bronte17 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:39:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you. (14+ / 0-)

            Some people cannot permit anyone to set a boundary, particularly a woman.

            I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

            by CherryTheTart on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:45:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  you're just shifting the goalposts (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CherryTheTart, Chi, DollyMadison

            which are 'where does privacy intersect with public interests?'. Comparing one's control over a 3 week fetus to a 3 year old tottler is what deflects from the real debate - which is whether or not an historically patriarchal society is going to force birth in all circumstances.

            Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

            by nickrud on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:46:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's not "the real debate" (0+ / 0-)

              It's a real issue within a much broader debate.

              "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

              by Geenius at Wrok on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:48:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  right this moment (6+ / 0-)

                that's the point it comes down to. Whether or not abortion will be legal at all. I don't disagree with your strategy - creating a cultural definition of viability that permits abortion - but the actual opponent here is that patriarchal control of women.

                Which is why, no matter my personal definition of viability, I don't support any legal restrictions on abortion of any kind today. Until that dialog matures there's just too much danger that the old guard will succeed.

                Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

                by nickrud on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:59:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  That's what the anti abortionists (0+ / 0-)

              Do. All the time.. They should read up on what the Church has decreed about abortion, since the middle ages

              "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

              by azureblue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:14:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Public Interest is about right (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              julifolo

              People want to argue about whether or not I give birth to a child, they are interested.  Once my child is born and he needs medical assistance and insurance companies are trying to kill him that is where Public Interest ends because now a real human being needs things and that requires sacrifice on someone's part.  Best to not be interested now!!!!!  Public Interest becomes like the wind then, and all I usually hear is the lonely howl of the lone banshee out there.

              If anti-choicers/forced birthers fought as hard for the impoverished handicapped children that are already here as they fight for straw children and theoretical children, what a great world we would have.  And fewer women terrified and having some support available when the pink is a plus sign.

          •  You are avoiding the point I made (5+ / 0-)

            she specifically said that she had rights over more than her body, her privacy, and her rights.  She specifically said she had complete control over her "child"  or "children."  Let me quote her again:  

            You come anywhere near my children without my permissiion and I will make you understand what "mine" means.
            .

            Those who believe that a fetus is a human being would tell you that as long as it is limited to this:

            She said for YOU to mind your own business when it comes to HER body and HER privacy and HER life.
            They DO mind their own business.  Where they disagree with you is that they do not think it is JUST "her body, and her privacy, and her life."  They think it ALSO involves the "child's" body, the "child's" privacy and -- most important to them -- the "child's" life.  They think they DO have a moral obligation to protect a "child" from being "killed" by a parent.  

            I think everyone agrees that we all have a moral obligation to oppose a parent killing a child.  The central question here is what is "a child"? Generally, pro-choice people do not believe that a fetus is a child (or, perhaps, do not believe a fetus is a child until viability).  Pro-life people believe that a fetus IS a child.  

            "What is a child" -- i.e., when does a fetus become a separate human being -- is the central issue here.  All other positions flow from that.  No moral person can support killing an "innocent human being."  The question is whether a fetus is a human being, and if so, when  a fetus becomes a human being.  

            Cherry began this diary by saying her statements "ended the debate."  That's what I took issue with -- the notion that saying "we are right, and they are wrong" somehow "ended the debate."  If you really want an honest debate, you have to be honest about the beliefs of those on the other side of the debate.  "They are just wrong" is not a "debate," nor does it "end the debate."  

            •  If a corporation is a person, why not a fetus. (0+ / 0-)

              Abortion is way too complicated to be a "for it or agin it" issue.   A father's rights further complicates the issue.

               If women can have an unequivocal right to an abortion, then the father should at least have an unequivocal right to disavow and walk away.   In practice, one and the same.  

              The complexity of the issue only points out how important it is that abortion be as rare as possible and not practiced as a casual form of birth control.   I don't know if the morning after pill technically qualifies as an abortive, but it shouldn't.     A 24 hour old fertilized egg isn't a human anymore than a corporation is.

              "bin Laden's dead, and GM is alive" ~ Biden

              by dkmich on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:02:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Unless i'm missing something.... (15+ / 0-)

                Until the birth of a living, breathing child, the man's rights should begin and end with whether or not he allows insemination to take place.

                If a man feels that a lack of legal input regarding the course of a woman's pregnancy will frustrate him, he shouldn't allow for the possibility. Don't like it? Don't get someone pregnant.

                Her body - Her decisions.

                If women can have an unequivocal right to an abortion, then the father should at least have an unequivocal right to disavow and walk away.   In practice, one and the same.  
                ^ Flawed logic, i'm afraid. A man has control over the distribution of his own semen. That is where his choice/input exists in the process.

                Money speaks for money, the devil for his own... Who comes to speak for the skin and the bone?

                by LeftOverAmerica on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:20:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Once a child exists, it can claim support of both (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CherryTheTart

                  parents.

                  But, really, reactionary governments us "deadbeat dads" as an excuse to cut safety nets from real people so they have more taxpayer money to give to corporate welfare cheats.

                  From the evidence of history, when law allows men to abandon support of there children, the results are horrible. I don't have a trouble with the state taking over if two kids fooling around (and they didn't get good sex ed) get in trouble. If it's adults old enough to now better, no, I don't think a man should be able to disavow.

                  Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                  by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:35:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Allows? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CherryTheTart

                  The same "mistake" that can happen to her can happen to him.   Fair is fair.    It takes two to tango.

                  "bin Laden's dead, and GM is alive" ~ Biden

                  by dkmich on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:48:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Clearly either (5+ / 0-)

                    i misunderstood dkmich's point, the diarist's position, or my comment is being misinterpreted or weirdly extrapolated.

                    I think dkmich's suggestion / line of thinking (as i understand it) is specious and anti-woman, but the diarist agrees with it (rec-wise)... So, wtf do i know?

                    Every time i speak here, i end up understanding less than when i started, lol.

                    For the record, I support/recognize a woman's total and complete autonomy over her own body, and that a man should financially support the children he fathers. I do not think a man should have any say whatsoever over a woman's pregnancy, beyond his mutually-agreed on role in achieving it. Men should have parental rights once there is a child to parent - prior to that, it's the woman's business, and her business only.

                    As ever, i am left completely baffled by the response to my comment. Going back to silent mode.... Carry on....Nothing to see here... :)

                    Money speaks for money, the devil for his own... Who comes to speak for the skin and the bone?

                    by LeftOverAmerica on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:54:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Actually, I thought your comment above was (4+ / 0-)

                      quite good.

                      And I'm sending it to share with Top Comments for the evening.


                      In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

                      by bronte17 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 05:48:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  It's just as absurd (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      dkmich

                      to tell a man that for nine months of his life only he has no rights in the matters of procreation as a matter of location, as it is to tell a woman what she may or may not do with her body. To my mind, the conflict is just a insoluble as the is a fetus a human being one.

                      and I wait for them to interrupt my drinking from this broken cup

                      by le sequoit on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:20:45 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I disagree completely. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        julifolo, Sharoney

                        Her body - Her choice.

                        You seem to be suggesting that men should be granted custodial control over the bodies and lives of the women they impregnate, from conception to birth. Unless i'm misunderstanding, you're saying it's "absurd" to suggest that men should not have final word on all decisions relating to a pregnancy.

                        "Final", because if a couple's wishes are in alignment, then there is no conflict regarding the course of the pregnancy and these issues never come up.

                         If a couple's wishes are not in alignment, one partner or the other must have the final decision. What you seem to be saying (again, unless i've misread you), is that in cases where a couple's wishes diverge, the man's wishes should supersede those of the woman in whose body the pregnancy is actually taking place.

                        To suggest that a man has some sort of 'temporary rights' over the body of a woman he has impregnated is patently ridiculous.

                        He has a choice - as he should - in selecting a partner with whom to conceive a child.

                         If that partner's wishes are not in accordance with his own, then he has made a poor choice (from his perspective)... A choice with which he will have to learn to live.

                        You say 'the conflict is insoluble'. I say there are no tenable grounds for conflict to exist. It's her body - Period.

                        Again, both parties do have a choice: He in selecting a partner with whom to conceive (a choice shared by the woman, obviously); She in everything else up to the date of birth. After birth, parental rights and responsibilities are shared (generally speaking).

                        The bottom line is very simple: It is her body, and therefore her choice. Always.

                        Money speaks for money, the devil for his own... Who comes to speak for the skin and the bone?

                        by LeftOverAmerica on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:31:03 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  You understood perfectly, LOA (3+ / 0-)

                      Allowing a woman the respect of adult status in making up her own mind is what mature men do.  To do otherwise is to treat her like an unintelligent backward child.

                      Both parties need to understand that when they engage in consensual sex that the responsible thing to do is use birth control at all times, every time.

                      If a man does not want to impregnate a woman, he should 1) wear a condom at any and all times he has sex, every time, without fail, even if a woman says she is on the pill (women have been known to forget, and, occasionally pills fail, too) or she says she is using a diaphragm or other birth control, or has an IUD (they've been known to fail; I know of two children born to two different women who each had an IUD, and the IUDs came out in the afterbirth), or, if a man really, really, positively and absolutely does not not ever want to father a child under any and all circumstances whatsoever, he he should 2) get a vasectomy (and then get tested to make sure the surgery worked; in rare cases a vas deferens that was only cut has been known to reattach itself), and 3) never, ever donate to a sperm bank.

                      That is a man taking responsibility for his own semen (obviously, I'm talking about consensual sex at all times here, and given your stance on the matter, assuming your partner has been willing and if her mind was changed at the last second, you stopped; or partners if you've not led a monogamous sexual life).  It won't make it impossible for a woman to become pregnant by using multiple methods of birth control, but it will make pregnancy quite a bit less likely (and the likelihood of STDs quite a bit less likely, too).  Of multiple methods of birth control, a medically proven vasectomy is probably the only way in which a man can't get a woman pregnant (that I know of).

                      There are those - both men and women - who want to be parents "someday."  Fine.  When having consensual sex, use multiple forms of birth control each and every time.

                      For those few who are quite certain, from a very young age, that they never want to become parents and want to remain childless by choice, I think it's wrong of doctors to refuse to perform a tubal ligation on a woman or a vasectomy on a man even if they request it when they're quite young.  Surgical methods are now good enough to reverse either operation if either changes their mind.

                      So, no, your position wasn't mistaken.  A man taking responsibility for where his semen goes is a sign of maturity and being a responsible human being.

                      I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

                      by NonnyO on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:49:24 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Men aren't adults? (0+ / 0-)

                        You are supporting a double standard.  That may be good or necessary, but it is a double standard.   A women can abort at will - even if she makes a mistake and gets pregnant.  A man cannot physically abort, but he should be able to abort legally if he makes a mistake.   I am a woman, and I have three grandsons.   What's good for goose ought to be good for the gander.

                        "bin Laden's dead, and GM is alive" ~ Biden

                        by dkmich on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:25:57 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Total agreement (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        NonnyO, Sharoney

                        Thank you for your reply, NonnyO - I appreciate your taking the time to post such an excellent breakdown of this aspect of the abortion 'debate' (Italics because i think the term "debate" is a bit of a misnomer... Gives the opposition too much credit, imo).

                        This specific facet of the divide (the alleged 'pregnancy rights' of men) seems (to me) to be one of the most frequently misunderstood and poorly reasoned - even among those that generally respect the autonomy of women over their own bodies. In a dynamic similar to those we see so often in American Politics, people want to believe in a kind of biological false equivalency... A false equivalency that serves only to further cloud the real issue (as FE's are prone to do).

                        While their motives may well be good and decent (like some of the people who have posted in this diary), their thinking totally glosses over the basic facts of human reproduction. Women can get pregnant - men cannot. As only women can bear children, only women can bear the burden of the final decisions related to carrying those children. The inarguable bottom line is that it is a woman's body, and therefore it is her choice. Period.

                        Some people seem to think that this is unfair to the men involved, but it is not. Each member of any pair involved in a pregnancy has options, but human physiology dictates that those options are not all identical. Some are, but some are not. If a man thinks that his potential mate's plans/wishes are unacceptably different than his own, he should choose to continue searching for a more appropriate partner, or he should accept the fact that he will not be in the driver's seat during the pregnancy. That is where his choice exists - prior to conception.

                        Regarding accidents... You've already spelled out birth control options/responsibilities perfectly. If a pregnancy still occurs, whether because of carelessness or equipment failure, then the man must defer to woman's decisions... Hopefully, he chose his partner wisely (from his perspective), and the woman's wishes/plans are similar to his own. If not? I'm sorry to all who think some sort of recourse should be available, but that's just tough cookies.

                        It's her body...It's her choice.

                         'I was drunk', 'I was young and foolish', 'The condom broke' are all sad/unfortunate circumstances, but they do not justify the outrageously indefensible assertion that the men should then be in a position to somehow impose their will on their pregnant partner.

                        We are all familiar with the endless political slogans that saturate our culture. Very few are as succinct, perfect, and true as 'Her Body Her Choice / Our Body Our Choice'

                        Sorry if i've rambled on, but reading some of the other replies made me want to delve into the issues they raised a bit more, lol.

                        Thanks again for taking the time to reply, NonnyO.... Much appreciated (on several levels).

                        :)

                        Money speaks for money, the devil for his own... Who comes to speak for the skin and the bone?

                        by LeftOverAmerica on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:33:13 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Velbekomme - (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          LeftOverAmerica

                          May you have a happy and satisfying life with the partner (or partners) with whom you choose to spend time, whether you choose to have sex or not.  After all, when it comes to choosing a life partner, you will want to know if the individual person is compatible on other levels besides when you're having sex.

                          :-)

                          May you have happiness always.

                          I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

                          by NonnyO on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:18:29 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  I am not anti-woman. I am a woman. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Militarytracy

                      I am not against abortion for any reason when done early.   Late abortions should require a good reason - health of mother, health of fetus, etc.    

                      When it comes to a woman not wanting to carry a pregnancy to term and the father wanting her to, all my logic and arguments of fairness break down because it is the women's body being used as the incubator.    But if the woman wants to have the baby and the man doesn't, I say she's volunteered for the role of parent and she is on her own unless the man volunteers too.   If she can abort without his consent, he can refuse to acknowledge and be responsible for the child she is having without his consent.    Having the baby should only be a voluntary action on the part of the woman.   So if she can refuse to volunteer then so can he.  

                      Anyway, this started out as a simple statement that abortion is not an either or issue because it is complicated.   I guess you would agree to at least that.    

                      "bin Laden's dead, and GM is alive" ~ Biden

                      by dkmich on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:37:49 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  i agree (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Sharoney

                        that people think the issue is complicated, but i disagree with your larger point for the reasons i've stated in several posts (both last night and today). Men always have a choice, and that choice exists prior to conception. After conception, 'I didn't mean to' (for whatever reason) is not a credible reason to bail on one's responsibilities. If the man in question is not ready to have children, he shouldn't be rolling the dice with other people's lives. My impression of the line of logic you are advocating is basically 'women should have autonomy over their own bodies, and idiot men who have no control over their own penises should have their bets covered by absurd legislation that allows them to walk away from the fruits of their totally irresponsible behavior'. It seems to me that you are comparing apples to oranges in an attempt to give something a superficial/specious appearance of 'fairness'.

                        There is probably room for debate when it comes to males below the age of adulthood, but that is all.

                        No personal offense intended with any of this, i just disagree strongly with the position you advocate.

                        Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

                        Money speaks for money, the devil for his own... Who comes to speak for the skin and the bone?

                        by LeftOverAmerica on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:57:08 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Don't like it? Don't get (someone) pregnant. (0+ / 0-)

                  My guess is that the anti-abortionists would share this sentiment towards the mother.

                  "bin Laden's dead, and GM is alive" ~ Biden

                  by dkmich on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:39:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  You bring up a good point over the right of (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dkmich

                someone NOT to become a father.  I believe strongly that until women give men the same rights over parental choices that they give themselves, these arguments are a bit hollow.  We cannot have it both ways. I do however draw the line at a man forcing a woman to have a child she does not want.  On the other side, if the woman wants to have a child and he doesn't, she should be on her own as a parent just as if she had chosen artificial insemination.  Volunteering to be a sperm donor is not the same as volunteering to be a father.

                •  Fair is fair - regardless of ideology. (0+ / 0-)

                  Nobody's rights are more divine than someone elses.

                  "bin Laden's dead, and GM is alive" ~ Biden

                  by dkmich on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:44:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  what ridiculous whining (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CherryTheTart, Sharoney

                  oh these poor, poor men so oppressed by these awful women "giving" themselves choices about their own body!! how dare they!!!

                  Think of me what you will, I've got a little space to fill. - Tom Petty

                  by itsbenj on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:59:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Women should have choices but so should men. If a (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Dr Swig Mcjigger

                    women chooses to have a child without the consent of the sperm donor, it is their life choice not theirs.

                    •  From a theoretical point of view this should make (0+ / 0-)

                      sense. The lesson of history, however, shows that there will be horrible results if men aren't held responsible for support.

                      Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                      by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 04:34:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That was a different time and place, women now (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Dr Swig Mcjigger

                        have options, in the past they didn't.  If a woman chooses to have a child without the consent of the man involved, one of her decisions has to be how she will support that child.  Making someone a father financially or emotionally when he doesn't want to be one should not be an option.

                        •  Under the current conditions, I don't support (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          CherryTheTart

                          lessening one of the few protections vulnerable women have against abuse, even if the purpose is no so much to protect the woman and her child as it is cover for government malfeisance.

                          Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                          by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 05:49:01 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  What abuse, she exercises her right to have a (0+ / 0-)

                            child, if you are saying she doesn't have a say and is being forced to have a child she doesn't want, that is something else.  In that case, the state needs to pick up the tab.

                          •  Some senarios I've heard from friends & court (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharoney

                            workers:

                            - the pregnancy is unwanted, but abortion is against the woman's personal ethic, so she's doing what she has to do, and she not going to murder her unborn child, even if her boyfriend/husband wants her to.

                            - the pregnancy itself is evidence of abuse; contraception sabatoge. In an area where abortion access is difficult or too expensive to obtain or when the woman believes abortion is killing (see above), a child is a way an abusive partner is able to keep himself in the woman's life even when she wants to leave him, because he'll have parental rights & responsibilities (even if he claims he didn't want the child). This is apparently a very frequent occuance in family courts.

                            - unequal risks. Casual sex has less risk involved for men than women. Men use the excuse that because some women take advantage of men that means all women do and so it's OK if they take advantage of any women, even if she's much younger or poor or otherwise more vulnerable.

                            - men who entitlement attitudes about women and have high powered lawyers will take advantage any loopholes that's intended not to punish young kids to their advantage.

                            This has happened in the past, it's happening now, even with the current protections. I don't see evidence that the protections aren't needed. Especially when the government safety net is being systematically shredded.

                            Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                            by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:24:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Protection for who, requiring people that do not (0+ / 0-)

                            want to be parents, is a sure way to make misery for all.  It makes parenting a punishment. You slept with the wrong person therefore I sentence you to 18 years of indentured servitude.  It is absolutely medieval and has no place in the 21st century.  

                          •  To repeat: I'm basing my opinion on historical (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharoney

                            evidence from the real world.

                            Relationships are a risk. A man who doesn't want "18 years of indentured servitude" should be careful of those risks. That outcome is less likely to happen if the lovers have a good relationship based on respect, equality and love.

                            Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                            by julifolo on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:17:40 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  sexual ethics 101 (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sharoney

                  Cherry:

                  Men have choices.

                  If men want to control their own reproduction, they can do the following things:

                  Use contraception or get vasectomy.

                  Practice abstinence.

                  Screw other men.

                  Have a talk with the woman you are about to screw about what her plans are for unexpected pregnancy. If you don't like the answer, don't screw her.

                  Once a man has left his swimmers behind in her, all his chances to affect reproduction (choices) are gone.

                  That is not unfair. That is biology.

                  Kestrel:

                  I guess men should never take a woman at her word when she tells him before sex that she's on the pill or has had her tubes tied.

                  Good to know, thanks.

                  Cherry:

                  No, they never should. For four reasons:

                  Contraceptives fail.

                  Once pregnant, a woman may decide to gestate. Pregnant for women is emotionally very different than nonpregnant.

                  Some women are evil.

                  And last, but not least, men (just like women) are totally responsible for their bodies and reproductive capacity.

                  I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

                  by CherryTheTart on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:36:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  She also made no limits to her statement. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DollyMadison

            She indicates she has full control over her children.  I agree that she has full control over any fetus up through the time of birth, but I don't accept that she has full control over her children after their birth, and neither does society.  If she does something to hurt her born children, society will step in to protect the children.  I believe that is good for the child and for society.  If Cherry would clarify how much total control she feels is right over her children, that would likely end this string of comments.

            I have issues with any prospective mother who abuses the fetus within her as well, but since I don't have a solution to someone who drinks alcohol to excess or who does illegal drugs and both those actions are likely to harm the fetus' development, there are laws that have been passed against that.  I don't have an answer to whether that's right or wrong - I would wish a prospective mother wouldn't do that, but I don't know that I (society) have the right to stop her.

            •  The question really is (5+ / 0-)

              does the State's interest extend inside the boundaries of my skin, or not?  If the State's interests stop where my skin begins, i.e. I have bodily sovereignty, then the State CAN NOT reach inside that boundary to monitor what I do with my developing child.  If the State's interests extend inside my skin, then there is NO END to all the crazy shit the state has the right to do to us and I'm not just thinking about reproduction here.

              Do you not see that it is the grossest idolatry to speak of the market as though it were the rival of God?

              by kismet on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:10:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Given a choice between the two, I'd have the state (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                julifolo

                stop outside the skin level.  It seems you're suggesting that the boundary is difficult to enforce if the state keeps voting in exceptions and I'll agree to that.  I think the mother should be the person who gets to decide what is best for her, though I don't object to VOLUNTARY education like warnings on liquor bottles stating that consumption might cause birth defects.  I do object to the various measures where doctors are forcing women to watch ultrasounds or other measures where doctors are directed to mislead patients.  

          •  her sexual organs are entirely different (0+ / 0-)

            from her children.

            She doesn't have similar exclusive rights and oversight over her children like she should have over her sexual organs.

            She said that they're all the same. They aren't. Leave it up to you to get it wrong once again.

        •  NO (13+ / 0-)

          that is not what she said.  


          And the debate is NOT about whether the fetus is a child or not. The debate is about it is none of your fucking business what that fetus and I are doing, together in my body.

           

          It is time to #Occupy Media.

          by lunachickie on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:45:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The "State" kills toddlers all the time (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          julifolo, Sharoney

          and not much accountability, there is often no single person who can be made legally responsible so ooops.  The "State" certainly does not demonstrate any kind of child treatment standard that any caring person who chose to be a parent and usher in and provide for the next generation should emulate.

      •  You ripped on statement out of context (0+ / 0-)

        Your children aren't yours to do with as you like.

        Yes, you have primary custody and you get to make most decisions, but they aren't equivalent to "your body". They aren't owned by you in the same way your sexual organs are owned by you.

        •  I assert ancient Mother right. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Voiceless

          It took women a long time to get it back.

          I repeat what I said to another poster:

          You come anywhere near my children without my permission and I will show you what "mine" means.

          I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

          by CherryTheTart on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:58:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This has already been explained to you (0+ / 0-)

            Not sure why you're still trying to argue this. Your children are not "YOURS" in the same way that your sexual organs are "YOURS".

            In fact, in most cases, most parents will protect their born children MORE than they'd protect their own bodies.

            But "ownership" is not equivalent for each. You should have pretty unlimited rights to control your own body. NO PARENT should have virtual unlimited rights to control their children's bodies. Control over your own body is NOT equivalent to the control one should be able to assert over another person's body.

            •  Explain your ass. See if I care. eom (0+ / 0-)

              I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

              by CherryTheTart on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:21:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yet again, no rebuttal possible, so insults only (0+ / 0-)

                You equated ownership of your body and ownership of your children, and they aren't equivalent. You don't own your children or your potential children in the same way you own your own body.

                Is there some reason why you can't simply acknowledge that?

                I mean, really, you don't care if your argument fails? Most people do. Most mature people will acknowledge a fatal flaw in their argument.

                •  My argument does not fail. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MadRuth, amsterdam, Tonedevil

                  Yours does. I have managed to avoid your nonsense for this whole diary. Good for me.

                  You are a wordy disaster. Not a thing you write makes sense in the context of this diary.

                  You are an emotional/psychological autiste, Love. I have been trying to be kind, but you insist you are correct.

                  And use a dictionary. Simple use of the dictionary would have avoided all your mad typing.  Look up the word "belong."

                  Now bugger off. You are annoying.

                  I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

                  by CherryTheTart on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 05:39:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, your argument totally failed (0+ / 0-)

                    Multiple people pointed that out, and you were obnoxious to all of them.

                    And everything I wrote in this diary made perfect sense - YOUR argument, that you could end the abortion debate, is totally bogus and would not work. My adjustement to your argument doesn, in fact, work, because it is incontrovertible. Before a fetus can live outside the womb, there is no basis upon which to grant it any similar rights to that of an actual human being.

                    You have NEVER "tried to be kind" in replying to me. You're being entirely disingenuous when you claim you are.

                    I don't need to look up the word "belong" to understand what's going on - your own diary disputes that assertion - you don't have the same rights to exert the same control over your children that you have over your own body. You asserted you did. You don't. Simple fact that you can't contradict, and so all you've done, once again, is make baseless personal attacks.

                    And who uprated your comment? My 3 stalkers, that's who. I hope you're proud of yourself. And yeah, it's annoying to get called out, righteously, for one's errors - but that doesn't make you a victim - it makes you someone who was wrong and who got caught at being wrong. Too bad, so sad - get over yourself, and make a better argument next time.

    •  What will end the debate is trusting women (19+ / 0-)

      and trusting doctors who trust women.

      There isn't a "problem" with late abortion that wouldn't be better handled with medical standards and moving abortion back into general OB-Gyn.

      Canada doesn't have abortion laws, it has medical standards, and scandels such as Gosnell don't happen in Canada. (I'm sure Life Site would tell me if they did.)

      Until birth, there are not two "separate lives". Medical standards handles the case of viability, especially since past a certain point & no crisis in the pregnancy it's Dangerous making an "abortion" vs. inducing birth. (And, often, inducing birth for no good reason is more dangerous than waiting for the process to begin.)

      Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

      by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:51:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How do you define "human life" answers (5+ / 0-)

        this question:

        Until birth, there are not two "separate lives".
        If the vast majority of the country agreed with that, there would be no problem.  But a lot of the country disagrees and thinks that at some point prior to birth -- whether it's one day prior to birth, or viability, or the beginning of the heart beat, or the beginning of brain activity, or conception -- there is a "separate human life."  (Roe v. Wade recognized the "interests of the fetus" -- i.e., the notion that the fetus was a separate human life with interests of its own that may diverge from the interests of the woman carrying the fetus -- at viability.)  

        The problem is that science can define what physically is happening.  Science cannot define when we consider someone a separate human life.  That's a moral/philosophical/religious issue.  If, for example, you think brain activity defines a human life (which many do, justifying the notion that the end of brain activity signals the end of life) then it's not completely illogical, for example, to think that the beginning of brain activity signals the beginning of human life.  

        You can't "end the debate" by simply declaring that a fetus is not a separate human life until the moment it is born.  That statement "ends the debate" only for those who agree with it on a moral/philosophical/religious basis. It does not end the debate for those who disagree with it on a moral/philosophical/religious basis.  

        That is why, I think, the abortion issue is so contentious and why, I think, there is no easy way to end it.  Because it's a moral/philosophical/religious matter, not a scientific one.  

        •  Nonsense (28+ / 0-)

          People oppose it for religious reasons and that is fine. But they DO NOT get to force their religious principles on me.

          People are morally opposed to many things that are perfectly legal. They don't get to shove that moral opposition on to others.

          If one is morally or religiously opposed to abortion, one should not have an abortion. One SHOULD NOT force that opposition on others.

          P.S. I am not a crackpot.

          by BoiseBlue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:21:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, here's the problem with that approach (4+ / 0-)

            Remember, a large portion of this country believes that a fetus is a human life -- with its own interests equal to a child -- at some point prior to birth.  

            Even the SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade said that a fetus has interests separate from the interests of the mother in the third trimester.  

            So, begin with the premise that a person believes that at some point prior to birth, a fetus is a child.    Does that person have a moral obligation to prevent the death of a child if he can?  Should a moral person support laws that prevent the death of a child?  Should a moral person support the right of a parent to kill her child? If you believe that a fetus is a child, how can you support laws that punish a person for killing a child one hour after birth, but oppose laws that would punish a person for killing a child one hour before birth?  

            If you believe a fetus is a separate human being ,  then you have a moral obligation to oppose killing that human being the same way you have a moral obligation to oppose killing other human beings that are innocent of significant wrongdoing.  If you believe a fetus is a separate human being, then killing a fetus is no different, on a morall/philosophical/religious basis, from killing a newborn baby.  No one would presume to tell people, "I think my newborn is not a separate human being, so it ought to be legal for me to kill it if I want.  You should not impose your view that a newborn is a separate human life on me."  

            For people who believe that a fetus is a human being, it makes logical sense that they oppose laws that make abortion legal.   If you accept that premise that a fetus is a child, frankly, it would be illogical (and immoral) NOT to oppose abortion laws.

            The only way to "end the debate" is to persuade the majority of Americans that a fetus is not a separate human being until viability (if you support the Roe framework) or birth (if you support the notion that abortion should be legal at any time).

            •  It is about the WOMAN first, fetus second (5+ / 0-)

              that is the problem with this debate. It is not about what the fetus is or is not, but about a fully morally capable human being owning her own body

              If no one wants to do an abortion for anyone at 8 months, then that is how society works it out, NOT by government involvement.

              •  government IS the voice of society (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DollyMadison

                As long as its just your body, and just your personhood, you get to do what you want. When it is now someone else's body, and someone else's personhood, you don't get to do what you want. Pretty simple so far.

                When does personhood start? That's the argument. Once society makes a decision we write it down. That's called "a law". How do we stop people from defying society's decision (ie, breaking the law)? Government intervention, that's how. Pretty simple so far.

                Our laws, and enforcement of our laws, ARE the voice and hands of society.

                Less "WAAAAH!", more progress.

                by IndyGlenn on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:30:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  that's not how our society works. (0+ / 0-)

                The State has an obligation to protect human life.  The State cannot condone one person unilaterally deciding that her rights prevail over another human life.  

                Let me give an example that illustrates.  Suppose a woman gives birth prematurely. The newborn is after the point of viability, but cannot survive without expensive medical attention.  Suppose the woman says, I did not ever want a child, I can't afford another child, I did not intend to become pregnant, I do not want to raise this child, and so I don't authorize the hospital to provide medical attention to the newborn -- medical attention that will cost ME money and put me into bankruptcy, harming the children I already have.  Let the newborn simply die on its own -- I don't authorize the additional medical efforts.  

                Do the rights of the woman outweigh the life of the newborn?  Of course not.  At that point, the State weighs in and says, the woman does not get to decide that.  The hospital must try to preserve the life of the newborn.  

                Suppose it is a woman in the same situation, but instead of being in a hospital, she gives birth to a child at home.  Can she unilaterally decide to abandon that child in a situation where there is no one available to sustain the life of that child?  Of course not.  That's a crime.  Because the state has an interest in preserving the life of that child.  

                If -- and remember, here's that assumption that is at the heart of everything -- you believe that a fetus at some point in the pregnancy is a human life, what  justifies the differential treatment, and what justifies a woman having the unilateral right to end another human life?

                The only rational justification is that a fetus, before birth, is NOT a separate human life worthy of protection by the state.  

                It all comes down to your view on that fundamental issue.  

            •  Separate is the key word here (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil, Sharoney

              You can argue until you're blue in the face over whether a blastocyte is a person, or what constitutes a person, but you cannot sensibly and accurately argue over whether a fetus is separate.

              If it were separate, it wouldn't be inside someone else's skin.

              By any definition of the word separate, a fetus is not separate.

              Like many other of the fruitless arguments we have with wingers, there comes a point where you have to say that people cannot just make up their own science, they cannot make up their own word definitions, and that there is no point arguing with someone about whether "melting icecaps" really denote ice transforming into a liquid stage, or whether "separate" means "outside of", or "apart from".

              I understand that there are plenty of idiots in the world and that many of them hold viewpoints contrary to logic, reason, and science.  I understand that these people participate in (right-wing) politics.  But there is no point in arguing a position when you begin by accepting their nonsense.  The argument becomes ridiculous.

              •  Coffeetalk comes into these prochoice diaries (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                julifolo

                and gives the same arguments every time. He/she knows he/she isn't going to change any minds. It's just shitstirring, parsing, which in my mind is one step away from trolling.

                You'll notice the commenter never mentions what his/her own "beliefs" are. We don't know where he/she is coming from. I believe (to use a phrase the commenter loves) that this is deliberate.

                It's also beyond tiresome, which is why I don't engage this person anymore. I don't like talking at a brick wall. It's a fucking waste of time.

                "The truth will set you free...but first it'll piss you off." - Gloria Steinem

                by Sharoney on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:41:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

                  It's the same thing with labor diaries and any discussion of big business.  I think it's useful to refute the bullshit, but I try to stay out of protracted discussions with that person for the reasons you mentioned.

        •  "How dare you call my nephew a tadpole!" (18+ / 0-)

          This is the down side of ultrasounds. Happily pregnant women and their families look at the ultrasounds and see the future, wanted person.

          They can't understand that everyone else shouldn't have the same reaction. Because I didn't want my "tadpole" doesn't mean I think your nephew shouldn't exist.

          That tadpole only became a person because the child was build of the very flesh and blood of the child's mother. And raised by older people who could feed and take care of the child.

          I don't believe it's

          a moral/philosophical/religious matter
          so much as it's a cultural matter. The millenia of men and the rulling class treating women and poor as "property" has led to unfair expectations. So I will loudly protest when I and my sisters are treated as less-than.

          Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

          by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:31:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your last point in particular is an excellent one (0+ / 0-)

            so perhaps you can understand why my own inclination is to extend recognition of human rights as broadly and inclusively as possible, rather than to look for reasons to deny them to one group or another.

            "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

            by Geenius at Wrok on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:43:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't understand your point (5+ / 0-)

              I think you could express yourself more clearly, so I think you don't agree with me. :-(

              I don't believe fetuses should have any legal rights -- having medical standards actually gives a better outcome -- see Canada. They don't have abortion laws, only medical standards. They don't have Gosnell scandals. (If they did, Life Site would have told me so.)

              Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

              by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:51:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's fairly straightforward (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coffeetalk

                Both extremes of the abortion debate are typified by the recognition of rights in one case and the rejection of rights in another. I believe both groups' rights should be recognized and reconciled, as between any other two groups of human beings.

                In fact, to a limited extent, this is exactly what the Roe v. Wade ruling does.

                "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

                by Geenius at Wrok on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:57:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  In my opinion, Roe v. Wade makes women 2nd class (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ice Blue, CherryTheTart

                  Even women who want to continue the pregnancy ... becaue doctors and police use Roe v. Wade as an excuse to punish pregnant women who don't act the way society thinks they should act.

                  In other words, it's good that Roe v. Wade was decided as a partial protection of women's rights. But it also allowed more attacks down the line.

                  Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                  by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:02:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, and it has been under attack, but not by us (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Geenius at Wrok, julifolo

                  We got a spit decision and the right has been fucking with it ever since...quite successfully I might add.

                  "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

                  by Sychotic1 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:44:03 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I think it's a very fundamental (4+ / 0-)

            moral/philosophical/religious question.  It's the question of what makes us humans?  

            For Catholics, what "makes us human" is their concept of an "immortal soul."  And the "immortal soul," they believe, begins at conception.  

            For others, it might be our brains -- our brain activity -- that makes us human, that makes a human life.  That is why, so often, the end of brain activity -- "brain dead" -- signals the real end of human life, and justifies stopping extraordinary measures to keep the body breathing.  If the end of brain activity justifies the end of human life, why doesn't the beginning of brain activity signal the beginning of human life?  

            For some people, it might be men wanting to keep women as chattel.  However, I know a lot of Catholic women (New Orleans is a very Catholic city) and other women (even some who do not qualify as "religious") who (1) do NOT hold those views that women should be subordinate to men, but (2) DO oppose abortion -- at least in some instances, or at some points in the pregnancy -- on the very moral/philosophical/religious views I mentioned.  I think it is a mistake --and, frankly, just wrong -- to dismiss ALL abortion opponents simply as men who hate women. If you want an honest debate over abortion, you need to understand where the other side is coming from.  

            I'm a woman, by the way.  

            •  I've had that discussion many times, but I only (12+ / 0-)

              have the discussion with people speaking about their own opinions, not someone talking on behalf of someone else's opinions.

              And I've been called cruel and hard because I won't accept their definitions of morality. And most don't want to admit they're treating me as 2nd class, even though that's what it looks like from my perspective.

              Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

              by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:58:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not in any way saying that you have to (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Geenius at Wrok, vinny67

                accept their moral/philosophical/religious views.  That's the whole point.  You do not have to accept theirs.  And they do not have to accept yours.  

                All I am saying is that if you want an honest "debate," you have to begin by understanding what the other side is saying, and where, exactly, the disagreement lies -- with the notion of whether a fetus is a separate human life.  

                •  In my experience (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Geenius at Wrok, CherryTheTart
                  understanding what the other side is saying, and where, exactly, the disagreement lies
                  is different with each person I talk with, so my first step is to get their/my definitions and repeat them back so we both agree on what each other is debating. And they we have an honest debate. Most of the time the debates are frustrating.

                  I have abortion discussions with people discussing their own opinions, not what they are saying on behalf of someone else's opinions. If I'm having a discussion with you I'd rather I was discussing about your opinions, not what you understanding of someone else's opinion.

                  Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                  by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:24:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's not my experience at all (0+ / 0-)

                    I sometimes find that people are so emotionally tied up in their own beliefs that they react emotionally, not logically or rationally, when anyone questions their beliefs -- sort of a "But they're just WRONG!  I'm just RIGHT!" kind of thing.  

                    It's often been my experience that people who are not as emotionally invested in one side or the other do a better job of explaining to one side what the other side's rational or logical (as opposed to emotional) position actually is.

                    •  It's hard for me not to be emotional when I'm (4+ / 0-)

                      protecting my own rights.

                      Since I want to talk about abortion and I want to protect my rights, I'll be discussing when I have an emotional investiment in protecting my rights. I acknowledge my emotions and I acknowledge the emotions of the person I'm debating. Then we discuss. Part of the discussion is why we have the emotions we have.

                      I don't know how I'd judge if a non-emotional "better" debate is more rational or logical than a so-called emotional discussion.

                      Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                      by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:54:29 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  People unable to separate emotional (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        DollyMadison

                        responses all too often, I think, resort to name calling.

                        "Woman Hater!" from the pro-choice group.

                        "Baby Killer!" from the pro-life group.  

                        While name-calling gives the "caller" some personal satisfaction, it does not move the country toward resolution of a very contentious issue like abortion.  In fact, I think it adds to polarization, making it LESS likely to get ultimate resolution -- both sides are more likely to harden their own views.   It doesn't convince the other side of anything.  Convincing people -- which you have to do if you want to "win" a debate like this -- requires rational discussion, which in turn begins with an understanding of the views of the opposition.  

                        •  True (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          coffeetalk, CherryTheTart, ladyjames
                          ins with an understanding of the views of the opposition.
                          I won't have an abortion discussion with anyone who won't listen to my opinions in the same way I'm listening to that person. As I said before, I start with definitions first.

                          But I don't disallow emotion, it grounds the discussion in real life. I acknowledge my emotion, I acknowledge the other person's emotion. And we have a rational debate.

                          If the other person just screams or belittles, then I ignore that person and talk to someone who wants to debate in good faith.

                          Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                          by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:21:28 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Exactly my point in the first place. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DollyMadison

                            That addressing the issue rationally means a recognition of where the real "sticking point" is in your disagreement with the other side.  It's not over whether they "hate women."  It's a philosophical difference over when human life begins,  if and when a fetus is a human life with interests separate and apart from those of the mother who carries that fetus, if and when a fetus is a separate human life deserving of protection by the State.

                            If EVERYBODY on the pro-life side were that way solely because they wanted to subjugate women, convincing the country would be a much easier matter.  It is becoming less and less acceptable in our society -- even among rational conservatives -- to view women as subordinate to men.  (And I say this as a woman who works daily in a world that is perhaps 2/3 conservative men.)  

                            However, it's a much more difficult thing to convince someone that your moral/philosophical/religious views on when human life begins should take precedence over their moral/philosophical/religious views on when human life begins.  

                          •  I think my original point was "moral" vs "culture" (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ladyjames

                            The culture defines what's "moral", ... but it's easier (I think) to deal with emotionally-loaded questions when the question is debated as a matter of "culture" rather than

                            moral/philosophical/religious
                            It's a way for one party to claim higher ground ... and therefore not debate in good faith.

                            When someone insists on debating something on the basis of "morals" I push back on that as I can, saying it's a cultural process that puts some moral questions as more important than others, and I try to debate that the other person has chosen to debate one more point when another moral point is of more importance to the real life situation we're discussing.

                            Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                            by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:58:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Here's the problem with this comment (5+ / 0-)
                      It's often been my experience that people who are not as emotionally invested in one side or the other do a better job of explaining to one side what the other side's rational or logical (as opposed to emotions) position actuall is.
                      Those of you arguing from "principle" must, at the very least, face up to this problem: a large portion of the human population (i.e. men) will not, actually, be DIRECTLY faced with the actual choice at question here--i.e. whether or not to have an abortion. Given the fact that 1) the devil, in questions of moral decision making is OFTEN in the details;  2) context has an enormous effect upon ethical questions (which is why so much ethical theory involves case-study approaches) and 3) there are, often, competing goods at issue in any particular moral decision, there is a very, very big difference indeed in having a principled position vis-a-vis abortion and actual being in the position of making such a choice. (BTW, there are plenty of "principled" anti-abortion" folk who, when faced with the choice for themselves or their daughters, decided to have an abortion.)  So long as THIS is the case--i.e. so long as only part of the human species will be actually directly facing such a choice--the so-called principled stance will regularly smack of paternalism and patriarchal oppression.  The notion that the "rational" (i.e. those less directly involved) have some special insight here is a fallacy. And it is one entirely in keeping with the patriarchal notion that "emotional" women need to be regulated/managed by "rational" people who can [fill in the blank: explain, reason, articulate, clarify, regulate] those overly emotional (because directly involved) females. So spare me your claims of "objectivity." Objectivity may  have its insights, but they are not necessarily superior to the insights (and deft analytical reasoning) of those emotionally involved (read Carol Gilligan on this point.)  .

                      THIS, in fact, is one of the diarist's points: whatever the state's interest, we need to keep in mind the fact that this moral question presses upon only some particular bodies in some particular situations. It is only THOSE particular bodies who are faced with the issue in its full context.  So I totally get the diarist's rant, regardless of the more abstract question as to whether or not this point, important though it may be, will end the debate. It won't; but not because of some principle that that diarist hasn't articulated. It won't because gender is not symmetrical.

                •  If you agree that (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tonedevil

                  one person does not have to accept another's definitions, then why does there have to be a debate in the first place?

                  If people generally accepted that as true, that each person is entitled to have their own moral definition, then what's left isn't debate over laws, but proselytizing, which, as far as I know, hasn't been made mandatory for the recipient.

            •  Keep your religion to yourself. (12+ / 0-)

              http://www.jewfaq.org/...

              It has no place in this debate. Why?

              Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother's life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

              An unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother's, because you cannot choose between one human life and another.

              I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

              by CherryTheTart on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:06:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I have no problem with that. (4+ / 0-)

                That is clearly your view, and I respect that.  I just want you to understand why that doesn't "end the debate," as the diary says.    

                Suppose a group of people said, we believe that there is no human life without the ability to reason.  Therefore, a newborn is not a separate human life until at least six weeks.  Until then, the brain is not developed enough to be capable of human thought or reasoning.  That is our religious view.  So, we want to pass a law saying that it is legal for a woman to kill a newborn until that newborn reaches six weeks of age.  Your view that a newborn is a human life at the moment of birth is your religious view, but you can't impose that on me.  

                Would you say the same thing?  That a woman who adheres to that religion should have the legal right to kill the newborn up to six weeks of age?  That people who believe as a moral/philosophical/religious premise that human life begins at birth (rather than at some stage in brain development) should just stay out of it and respect laws that say a woman can kill a newborn until six weeks of age?  

                That is EXACTLY how people who believe that a fetus is a human life view your argument.  They believe you are telling them they should simply accept your right to kill another human being because you don't believe it's another human being.  

                Again, I completely understand that you disagree.  What I'm doing is explaining to you why simply telling people "I don't think it's a human being" does not end the debate.  If by "end the debate," the diarist means "provide a position as to which there is no rational response," then saying "it's none of your business" does not "end the debate."  It is definitely the pro-choice answer.  And it may be the answer for all those who agree with your underlying moral/philosophical/religious position.  But that's NOT the same as saying it "ends the debate."

                The only thing that can "end the debate" is a consensus in this country as to when a human life begins.  

                •  #79 (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Chi, Calamity Jean, Voiceless, ladyjames
                  When great ill-will is reconciled,
                  There remains ill-will.
                  How shall it be made good?
                  By the sage holding the left-hand tally
                  And laying no guilt on others.
                  If you have virtue, you do what you should.
                  If you have no virtue, you levy claims.
                  The Tao of heaven plays no favorites,
                  But it always succors the good.

                  I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

                  by CherryTheTart on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:36:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Well they ain't getting that shit from any bible (9+ / 0-)

              the bible does not say anywhere that life starts at conception.  In fact it says that life either starts with quickening or with the first breath.  So, they made the whole conception shit up out of whole cloth.

              "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

              by Sychotic1 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:45:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not all moral/philosophical/religious (0+ / 0-)

                views begin and end with the Judeo-Christian Bible, of course.    That's exactly why I said it's a moral/philosophical/religious question -- your beliefs can be  based on any one of those, or a combination of those.

                And a simple Google search tells you that the Judeo Christian Bible contains a number of statements that imply different things on when a human life begins.  For example, Numbers 3:15 would imply it's when a baby reaches one month old.  On the other hand, there are statements that say that God has a hand what is going on in the womb, implying at least that a fetus is a creation of God.  Job 31:15; Psalm 22:9-10; Psalm 139-13-16. Those imply, at least, that the Judeo-Christian "God" values what exists "in the womb" as a human life.  

            •  Medical crisises don't happen to most people (5+ / 0-)

              so most people do not understand that laws that limit a woman's healthcare are dangerous.

            •  People who believe that women are just containers (8+ / 0-)

              Unfortunately there are a lot of them.  If you start regulating what goes on inside a body, and allow the State to take custody of that body and deprive its owner of sovereignty for any reason, that opens a lot of doors.  People forget that by imposing this on women, they are setting a precedent that could go in a lot of directions.  It's not just women who are second-class in this country.

              Do you not see that it is the grossest idolatry to speak of the market as though it were the rival of God?

              by kismet on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:17:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Roe protects DOCTORS (6+ / 0-)

          not feti. That was Blackmun's concern when he wrote the decision: suits against physicians. The effects on women were not his concern, but women took the opening the decision provided to run their own lives, the Religious Right got indignant, and here we are, still, forty years later.

          Radarlady

          •  Not exactly correct. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DollyMadison, gramofsam1

            What Roe said is that, after viability, the State can protect the life of the fetus.   Let me quote from the opinion:  

            With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [p164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
            It specifically said that, after viability, the state can enact laws to protect the life of the fetus.  

            That is a recognition that, at some point before birth, the fetus is a separate life worthy of State protection.

            •  And you were trying so hard (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CherryTheTart

              not to reveal your opinion.

              •  Quoting Roe, and telling a poster (4+ / 0-)

                what Roe said, means that Roe v. Wade is "my opinion"?

                I'm a lawyer.  Quoting cases, and explaining the holding of those cases, is what I do for a living -- whether I agree with the holding of those cases or not.  

                •  You're correct (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Kentucky DeanDemocrat

                  that's the language of the opinion -- most people haven't read it, so it's good you quoted it exactly. My comment was more directed toward Blackmun's concerns as he wrote the decision, and the impact it had on the culture as a whole, as discussed in "Becoming Justice Blackmun," which goes into his research prior to writing Roe fairly extensively.

                  Radarlady

              •  I'm so tired (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                julifolo

                of those who argue for the anti-choice side and then hide behind hypotheticals and esoterica when challenged--and who hold people at arms' length when they are asked to reveal their actual stand on controversial issues as opposed to some lawyerly esoterica.

                As a vagina-American, the issue of a woman's right to her own bodily integrity IS personal. It IS real life, not some fraking law brief that can be quoted for the sheer pleasure of rhetorical sparring.

                "The truth will set you free...but first it'll piss you off." - Gloria Steinem

                by Sharoney on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:49:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  claptrap (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          julifolo, CherryTheTart, ladyjames
          You can't "end the debate" by simply declaring that a fetus is not a separate human life until the moment it is born.  That statement "ends the debate" only for those who agree with it on a moral/philosophical/religious basis. It does not end the debate for those who disagree with it on a moral/philosophical/religious basis.
          The church has changed the definition of person hood over the years, from a month after birth ( decreed that a baby does not receive a "soul" until one month after birth, therefore, to kill a human with no soul is not murder), to at birth, to now , gestation. That, my deluded friend, is the perfect example of a religion changing its "morals" to fit the time. IOW, your so called "morals" are quite malleable...

          "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

          by azureblue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:19:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So, because you think (0+ / 0-)

            that some people's morals have changed, anyone who holds those same moral views must be dismissed as liars, not being honest about their moral/religious/philosophical views?  

            Or are you arguing that because one church has, in your view, changed their position over the last 2000 years on when human life begins, no one today can hold a moral position different from yours on that?  

            There is no answer in science for when human life begins, since defining "life" is a difficult enough question for science, much less defining "human life."  So, what ARE the legitimate (in your view) sources for answering the question of when human life begins?

            •  I will remind you (4+ / 0-)

              that at one time in this country, killing a slave was not murder. And the Bible was used to justify that. And teh laws of the land reflected that, too.

              You so cavalierly fling around the work "liar". Pathetic. Just pathetic. The response of a debater who has lost the argument. It would be one thing if I was like Mitt, just lying about facts right and left, but when you use the term in a moral argument, well---.  It's not a matter of being honest about your beliefs, and you know it. It is a matter of what are you going to use as a bedrock for your moral values - are they absolute, or do they change to fit the situation. Ergo, What was once acceptable and allowed by the church, is now not, because "times have changed"? is an abortion "murder", but the killing of a pregnant Iraqi women not? Is it Ok to bomb children in other countries, but it is not OK to allow abortions in America? So why can't you pick a position and stick to it? Your response is specious and grasps at straws.

              If you say that "there is no answer in science for the beginning of human life, then all you have left to support your contention is moral belief. And, once again, you can believe the sky is green all you want to, but keep your religious beliefs to yourself. But I will paraphrase Jesus here, who said in Matthew 7:1-5, "take care of your own business before you go sticking your nose somebody else's." Very wise words I think, regardless of the source.

              And this loops right back to the rock solid rationale of the diarist- abortion is the woman's decision.

              "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

              by azureblue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:39:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree that abortion is a woman's decision (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DollyMadison

                if you assume there is no other human being involved.  

                If you assume that a fetus is a human being, then abortion affects TWO people, and the interests of BOTH people must be involved.  

                So, the rationale of the diarist rests on an assumption is that there is only one person involved -- the woman -- and that the fetus is not a separate human life.  If you accept that assumption, the rationale of the diarist is "rock solid."  If you do not accept that assumption, the rationale of the diarist falls apart.  

                If you accept the contrary assumption -- that a fetus is a human life -- the idea that it is solely the woman's decision falls apart.  Nowhere in our history, society, or culture have we ever accepted the notion that one person has he unilateral right to to end the life of another human being.  

                The diarist's rationale is only "rock solid" AFTER you have taken a position on the underlying issue of whether the fetus is a human life.  

                If you accept the premise that a fetus is a separate human life, then the opposing notion -- that one person does not have the unilateral right to end another human life -- can also be said to be logically sound.  

                And science has never defined when human life begins.  Pretty clearly a zygote is "life" -- the question is whether a zygote, an embryo, a fetus is a separate human life.  And science cannot come close to answering that -- it struggles enough with the question of "what is life," without even tackling "what is HUMAN life."  See here and here and here and here.

        •  There is no "heartbeat" moment (4+ / 0-)

          I have had 3 IVFs and two miscarriages and when the embryo attaches the blood supply from the mother begins and the mother has a beat, the pumping of blood, the pulse.
          When people talk aobut hearing a "heartbeat" the word heart is all Valentines and love but it is just big enough to pick up the pulse of the blood flow.

          ugh
          MY body, MY choice, no matter what anyone things about ensoulment or other blather.

        •  I think you CAN make that argument at nonviability (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nickrud

          I think you CAN argue that no non-viable fetus should ever get superior control over a woman's body.

          It CAN be argued that after viability that women must think about the rights of that viable fetus - that potential human being, were that fetus leave the womb.

          But before viability, no fetus should ever be allowed to make the woman's right to control her own body the inferior right.

        •  which is why the state needs to keep out of it. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ladyjames, CherryTheTart, Tonedevil

          favoring one religious POV over another is against the establishment clause of the first amendment.

    •  And "physical harm" to a "child" does not include (18+ / 0-)

      a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus. A child is a living, breathing human being and does not encompass those developmental stages of pregnancy.

      You are playing an ugly switcheroo and inserting emotive language there to equate an embryo with a living breathing child who is taken out into a forest and abandoned.


      In my honor he pulled out old forgotten dignity and walked straight in a crooked world. ~~poetry of young Barack Obama

      by bronte17 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:33:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not a person until the IRS says it is. ;-) (14+ / 0-)

        Never meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer.--Bruce Graham

        by Ice Blue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:50:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's the central issue, of course (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Geenius at Wrok

        is a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, or a fetus a "child"?

        Are those separate human lives, distinct from the woman carrying them, or not?  

        I understand that you believe they are not.  And those who support the legality of abortion agree with you.  Those who say that abortion is solely up to the woman are saying that there is no separate human life involved.  

         My point is that a very large portion of the country (including the SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade) disagrees with you, and believes that at SOME point prior to the moment of birth, the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus IS a distinct human life that must be considered, and that can be protected by the State.

        I objected to the notion that saying that "it's my decision as a woman" somehow "ends the debate."  The only way to "end the debate" is to answer that fundamental question -- what makes a human life -- in a way that ends all rational disagreement.   As long as you have moral/philosophical/religious disagreement on that question of "what makes a human life," I don't see a way to end the debate.  

        •  My own take on it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          julifolo

          -- which, to be plain, is not in any way religiously inspired, since I am not in any way religious -- is that a human fetus, with the right nourishment and in the right environment, will grow on its own, whether its mother wills it or not, into a fully formed infant and, eventually, an adult; that while the fetus can't live without its mother, neither can a human infant; and that the argument that early-term fetuses lack features that would distinguish them as human is rebutted by their DNA.

          On the other hand, a fetus is not a baby, any more than a toddler is a teenager; it's an earlier developmental stage. This is relevant, because we acknowledge certain limitations on children's legal rights based on their developmental stage, so it stands to reason that fetal rights should be limited further. It makes sense to suppose that a developing fetus accumulates the full rights of a newborn gradually, starting from zero at the point of conception.

          At some point along the way, the fetus's right to life comes to outweigh its mother's right to liberty, while before that point, the mother's right to liberty prevails. If we can get this far, then we can treat the issue matter-of-factly as a conflict between the rights of two parties, and we can begin to establish criteria for determining which party's rights should take precedence over the other's under which circumstances.

          If clear guidelines are established, then nothing more ought to be necessary to ensure compliance than filling out a checklist, which a woman and her doctor could handle on their own and in private. "Medical standards," as someone else said.

          As Americans, we should prefer to construe human rights more generously, rather than look for excuses to deny them. The Declaration of the Rights of the Child (which every nation on earth has ratified except the United States and Somalia) states, "The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity."

          While a fetus is not a child, the justification for granting these rights to children ("Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth") does apply to fetuses as well. At the same time, it's absurd and unconscionable to categorically deny a pregnant woman's entitlement to equal protection under the law and her right to determine the course of her own life for the sake of some sacrosanct status granted to the fetus she carries. Pregnancy and parenthood demand substantial sacrifices, and these should never be made unwillingly. And if a child is unlikely to develop in a healthy and normal manner in conditions of freedom and dignity, it may well be kinder to allow that child never to be born.

          "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

          by Geenius at Wrok on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:31:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You said (9+ / 0-)
            that while the fetus can't live without its mother, neither can a human infant; and that the argument that early-term fetuses lack features that would distinguish them as human is rebutted by their DNA.
            Actually this is where you are wrong.  a fetus cannot live without its mother but a human infant can be taken care of by any other humans who would like to take an interest.  If in fact others could take care of the fetus, then we probably wouldn't be having this argument.

            "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

            by Sychotic1 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:49:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  There are a few errors in your comment (7+ / 0-)
            a human fetus, with the right nourishment and in the right environment, will grow on its own, whether its mother wills it or not, into a fully formed infant
            The mother actually HAS to will it to. "With the right nourishment and in the right environment" clearly depends on the involvement of the woman. Clearly. The woman provides the environment AND the nourishment.

            Second, as an aside, many, many fetuses come and go with no one even knowing. Women can miscarry without even being aware of it. Some women miscarry even when they create the perfect environment and nutrition.
             

            that while the fetus can't live without its mother, neither can a human infant
            I'm surprised that you even typed that. An infant can live without it's mother. That's why infants don't die when they're given up for adoption. They don't need a particular person, they just need a person. The fetus needs a very specific person- the mother. That means that it is most certainly dependent on that one particular woman until it is viable outside of the womb.

            And viability is still a tricky subject for many reasons, which brings me to

            At some point along the way, the fetus's right to life comes to outweigh its mother's right to liberty, while before that point, the mother's right to liberty prevails.
            Viability is tricky. If a woman in an urban area goes into pre-term labor, the fetus would be viable at six months with the aid of modern technology. Not because it's a fully formed human infant.

            If the same woman lives in the middle of nowhere and has no access to modern technology, guess what? That fetus most likely won't be viable. It could be, but it most likely won't be.

            So to say that at some point the right to life of the fetus comes to outweigh the right to liberty for the woman means we draw arbitrary lines.

            Now, don't get me wrong, I understand that we have to draw the line somewhere. But you say:

            As Americans, we should prefer to construe human rights more generously, rather than look for excuses to deny them.

            But you still have to weight those rights, and you'd prefer to construe them more generously for a fetus at six months than you would for a woman.

            You argue downthread about fetal rights, saying it does not infringe upon a woman's rights, then say right here that "the fetus's right to life comes to outweigh its mother's right to liberty."

            And that is your idea of construing rights more generously?

            P.S. I am not a crackpot.

            by BoiseBlue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:04:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Uh, what? (0+ / 0-)
              But you still have to weight those rights, and you'd prefer to construe them more generously for a fetus at six months than you would for a woman.
              Where in the world did I say this?

              "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

              by Geenius at Wrok on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:35:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Right here (7+ / 0-)
                At some point along the way, the fetus's right to life comes to outweigh its mother's right to liberty
                I would say that's more generous to the fetus than it is to the woman, wouldn't you?

                P.S. I am not a crackpot.

                by BoiseBlue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:42:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, not really . . . (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DollyMadison

                  given that under most circumstances, between two otherwise equal individuals, when one's right to life comes into conflict with the other's right to liberty, the former is favored. Generally speaking, we need a damn good reason to take someone's life away, since -- unlike liberty or property -- it's something that can't be given back.

                  One exception would be if a person were being held captive against his will and could escape only by killing his captor. In that case, liberty might well come first.

                  "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

                  by Geenius at Wrok on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:24:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So now you ARE saying that the fetus and the (0+ / 0-)

                    woman are equals? Because downthread you said they are not and would never say such a thing.

                    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

                    by BoiseBlue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:28:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  At 9:41 this morning (0+ / 0-)
                    I have never asserted, and would not assert, that a fetus's rights are equal to yours.
                    Later that day:
                    between two otherwise equal individuals, when one's right to life comes into conflict with the other's right to liberty, the former is favored
                    Which is it? Are the fetus and I equals or are we not? Which way do you want to have it?

                    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

                    by BoiseBlue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:31:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I haven't contradicted myself yet (0+ / 0-)

                      If it seems to you that I have, it's because you're either deliberately misreading what I'm saying or not paying attention.

                      A fetus is a human being in its earliest developmental stage. Later it will become an infant, then a child, then an adolescent, then an adult.

                      From infancy to adolescence, people do not have rights equal to those of an adult. However, because of the nature of childhood, they are entitled to special protections that adults do not. (Cf. the U.N. Delcaration on the Rights of the Child.)

                      I maintain that, from the point of conception to birth, the rights of a fetus and the protections it's entitled to progress proportionally from zero (at conception) to the same as those of a newborn infant (just before birth).

                      Since a newborn infant's rights are not equal to those of an adult, neither are those of a fetus, under any circumstances.

                      You said:

                      you still have to weight those rights, and you'd prefer to construe them more generously for a fetus at six months than you would for a woman.
                      Your basis for saying this was that I said:
                      At some point along the way, the fetus's right to life comes to outweigh its mother's right to liberty
                      You characterized this as:
                      I would say that's more generous to the fetus than it is to the woman, wouldn't you?
                      And I said, no, it's not. First, between two equals, the right to life usually does trump the right to liberty. If you don't have the freedom to do something that will cause my death, is that more generous to me than it is to you? No, it's just everyday moral calculus. Second, while children have fewer rights than adults, they do have (or ought to have) more protections. My assertion is that as a fetus develops, and as its rights and protections progress toward those enjoyed by an infant, there does come a point at which your liberty is no longer more important than its life. Is this more generous to the fetus than to you? No, it's not. Does it make the fetus's rights equal to yours? No, it doesn't.

                      Also, for the record, it was you who came up with the "six months" figure, not I. I have never presumed to say where the line should be drawn; I only say that there is a line and that neither conception nor birth is the place to draw it.

                      "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

                      by Geenius at Wrok on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 03:03:37 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  I'm glad you agree about medical standards. (4+ / 0-)

            I think medical standards are appropriate and sufficient protetction of the public good. Though I wouldn't describe that as giving the fetus "rights". (We have different definitions, obviously.)

            Clarification: I want the medical standards based on science, not ideology (such as administrators of some religious hospitals that won't allow killing a fetus that's killing its mother).

            Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

            by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:05:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That would imply that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DollyMadison
              I think medical standards are appropriate and sufficient protetction of the public good
              States can pass laws outlawing abortion after viability so as to save the life of the fetus, as Roe v. Wade held.  Roe v. Wade used "medical standards" as the guideline for when a fetus had "interests" separate and apart from the woman carrying the fetus, such that the State can protect the life of the fetus against the will of the woman carrying the fetus.  

              That also means, however, that as science advances, and viability becomes earlier and earlier, laws outlawing abortion can also follow suit.  

              •  RvW is law, not medical standards (0+ / 0-)

                Though it used some medical facts in its decision.

                The thing about medical standards (see Canada) is that the criteria is patient-centered where law is more of a "things should be equal (same)" criteria, which doesn't fit medical science very well.

                For instance, TRAP laws are about politics, not medical standards, even though the politicians (most of them practicing medicine without a liscense) try to pretend it's "medical standards".

                Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:22:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Throw that one by my sister :) (17+ / 0-)

          Sis is as vehemently pro-choice as CherrytheTart and also vehemently child-free.

          If you argue abortion with Sis and use the word "fetus" or "embryo" she will, also. But the minute you start talking "child" or "baby" or "unborn", she shifts to "parasite".

          It's crudely effective :D.

          "Maybe: it's a vicious little word that could slay me"--Sara Bareilles

          by ChurchofBruce on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:42:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The woman's rights trump the fetus (5+ / 0-)

          that is how we end this debate. Go ahead and try to determine when a fetus is really a person, and then educate others, but the rights of the woman to own her own body are what we are talking about and I doubt you agree that the state owns my uterus after say, 4 months.

  •  This is the message Democratic pols need to hear (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon

    from constituents, in order to keep them from wavering in defense of reproductive rights.  

    However, it doesn't in any sense end the abortion debate in our culture.  Only altering the patriarchal nature of the culture, & by extension the grip of conservative Christian culture, will do that.  Consistent support of qualified female political candidates, & persistent discussion of cultural issues, such as support for female equality in Christian denominations that currently prohibit it, are a must.  Change that, & the abortion debate will quietly end in the culture, along with  other issues where women have more empathy & sense.

    Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

    by Leftcandid on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:42:48 AM PDT

  •  If "my body, my choice" (which is essentially (4+ / 0-)

    what you're saying) ended the debate, the debate would have been over ages ago.

    Unfortunately, it doesn't end it. To be clear, I agree with you. It's no one's business what women choose. No one can make a choice for anyone else, and the state, when it rolls back Roe V Wade, is essentially telling women what they can and cannot do.

    But it's not as black and white to forced-birthers. Some of them genuinely believe that an abortion kills a baby. It's misguided and wrong, but it's a genuine belief that they have. Telling them that it's about anything else is pointless.

    It's especially maddening because many of these same people get the vapors over sex ed. They're simpletons. So simple that even a simple message gets lost on them.

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:08:07 AM PDT

    •  cherry,newsflash (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CitizenJoe, merrywidow

      once your kids are out of your body,they become seperate people with their own rights .

    •  It's wrong birth was gengineered to be dangerous (7+ / 0-)

      by evolution.

      So I get sick of "genuine belief" of honest anti-abortion people in essense claiming pregnant women as communitty property (which is what is happening when they continually push their expectations toward what pregnant women "should" or "must" do.)

      The biology of human birth is a trade off: In most cases (prior to modern medicine) the reason for death in childbirth is birth canal can't handle the baby's head. The process of giving birth isn't as difficult for other primate species, but larger brain size was such a survival advantage that genes that would cause death in a significant percentage of births, those genes still breed true -- since earlier children or other siblings survived to carry the gene, or if the baby lives & there's another woman in the local group with milk who can take care of another child.

      Under the circumstances, it's only fair -- if we want to have a culture that is equitable for poor & women -- if strangers are permitted to interfer.

      Telling them that it's about anything else is pointless.
      Yes it's maddening, especially their self-righteousness. I think it's more of a moral problem that both biology & society put more burden on women & the poor than men & people with more resources.

      Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

      by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:19:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Please watch this, (12+ / 0-)

    She is one of the very few reasons I'm proud to be an Okie...

  •  You haven't ended the debate at all. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mideedah, belzaboo, DollyMadison

    All you've done is take one of the two extreme positions. As long as you occupy that position, and others occupy the other extreme position, the only way the debate will be ended is if words are abandoned in favor of blows.

    Anyway, debates don't exist to be ended but to be advanced. To advance the abortion debate, the so-called pro-choice side will have to acknowledge that fetuses are human and alive and have rights (albeit limited ones), and the so-called pro-life side will have to acknowledge that women do not lose their own natural rights when they get pregnant. Then a framework will have to be sought in which both women's and fetuses' rights are upheld to the greatest possible extent, with reasonable criteria established for resolving conflicts between the two.

    I've made this point in the past, and several other Kossacks jumped down my throat. As eager as they were to embrace this way of thinking, you can imagine how easy it will be to get the other side to come around. But that's the only way forward. Nothing is advanced when each side will be satisfied with nothing less than total and permanent victory over the other.

    "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

    by Geenius at Wrok on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:22:08 AM PDT

    •  No. We don't have to balance the "rights" of (19+ / 0-)

      fetus with the Rights of women. That's not a framework that's practical. Fetuses do not have rights. And women do not need to concede some of their own for a fetus.

      P.S. I am not a crackpot.

      by BoiseBlue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:30:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  according to the Supreme Court (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Geenius at Wrok, VirginiaBlue

        in Roe v. Wade a fetus does have legal standing - once 'viability' is reached the state can impose limits, even prohibit abortion as long as it doesn't threaten the mother.

        Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

        by nickrud on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:35:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fetuses do not have "rights" though. (6+ / 0-)

          We don't say that about anything else except when talking about abortion. Women can still do anything they want while they are pregnant as long as it is legal. They can drink and smoke and reject prenatal care. They can do that because they have rights. The fetus, whether it is viable or not, has none.

          P.S. I am not a crackpot.

          by BoiseBlue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:44:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You could as easily say (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DollyMadison

            that a resident of North Korea has no rights. After all, the North Korean government doesn't recognize any.

            However, if you take the view that human rights exist prior to legal recognition, then the same argument that you'd make in recognition of the rights of North Koreans can be made for fetal rights as well.

            "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

            by Geenius at Wrok on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:47:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I would say that (7+ / 0-)

              Because legally speaking, they don't have rights. Do I believe they should? Yes. Do I think a fetus deserves the same recognition? No.

              So while some may work to ensure that fetuses are granted rights, I would work against them because you cannot give a fetus rights without taking some of mine away.

              P.S. I am not a crackpot.

              by BoiseBlue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:53:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Once upon a time, not so long ago (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CherryTheTart

                a patriarchal husband would have made the same argument about his wife: "You cannot give her rights without taking some of mine away."

                Hell, in a lot of places, he's probably still making that argument.

                I would not agree with him either.

                "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

                by Geenius at Wrok on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:00:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's nonsense and both you and I know it. (6+ / 0-)

                  Do you believe that I have the right to my own reproductive choices? I have those rights as I type.

                  If tomorrow we declare that fetuses have rights, guess what, I've just lost that right.

                  P.S. I am not a crackpot.

                  by BoiseBlue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:09:12 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Do you believe that I have the right (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    DollyMadison

                    to free speech? I do. Yet if I make false, malicious and harmful allegations about another person, he can sue me for slander.

                    I do not believe that I've lost my right to free speech simply because another person has the right not to be defamed.

                    "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

                    by Geenius at Wrok on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:15:46 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You keep using examples of PEOPLE (9+ / 0-)

                      who do not reside in a uterus. Yes, I believe that you and the man you defamed should always have equal rights. You are both obviously viable outside of a uterus because one of you is speaking and the other one is suing. And if a fetus cannot exist outside of a womb, it does not get rights equal to mine. Period.

                      Most people say they support the right of abortion in the case of rape and incest. So, does my fetus still have equal rights if I'm raped? Or is it absurd to say your rights only exist if we approve of the actions of your father? Do we then create a hierarchy of rights for fetuses depending on how they were conceived? No.

                      You wouldn't possibly stand here and say with a straight face that a woman should have to carry a fetus to term if she gets raped. Which means you support a raped woman's rights more than a non-raped woman's rights. Or you support the rights of a fetus that was a product of good sex more than you support the rights of a fetus that was a product of rape. See how silly it gets when we try to say that a fetus has rights equal to women instead of just trusting women to use their rights in the way they believe is best?

                      P.S. I am not a crackpot.

                      by BoiseBlue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:30:02 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes, I do. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        DollyMadison
                        And if a fetus cannot exist outside of a womb, it does not get rights equal to mine. Period.
                        Of course not. A child that does exist outside of a womb doesn't get rights equal to yours either. Its rights are limited, and it's also granted special protections. This is well established. Just as childhood is a different, earlier developmental stage from adulthood, so is the fetal stage with respect to childhood. By extension, it stands to reason that fetal rights should be even more limited than children's rights, even as they are granted protections for the same reason that children are granted protections.

                        I have never asserted, and would not assert, that a fetus's rights are equal to yours. In most cases, I would assert that your rights would supersede your fetus's. But I do also posit that there are some circumstances in which they wouldn't.

                        "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

                        by Geenius at Wrok on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:41:32 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Giving her rights didn't make him (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CherryTheTart, BoiseBlue, LSophia

                  sick, fat, have stretch marks, risk his life.  There is a distinct different and you are being purposefully obtuse.

                  "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

                  by Sychotic1 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:52:30 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  it would be a slippery slope (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sychotic1

            to legally penalize women who abuse their bodies, and by extension the fetus while pregnant. Although, in at least drug usage cases, once the child is born the mother can and often does lose custody. There are legal consequences for behavior while pregnant.

            Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

            by nickrud on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:53:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Geenius at Wrok, DollyMadison

            definitely did say that, in the third trimester, a fetus DOES have rights -- "interests" that the State can protect.  The SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade said that, in the third trimester, a State CAN pass laws designed to protect the life of the fetus.  

            •  Because the state has an interest in something (6+ / 0-)

              does not give that thing rights. A fetus does not have rights, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise. If it did, smoking and drinking while pregnant would be illegal.

              The state of Idaho has an interest in ensuring that livestock is healthy and free of disease. That does not give livestock rights. It just means the state has an interest in protecting a cattle's health.

              P.S. I am not a crackpot.

              by BoiseBlue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:51:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Interests do not equal rights, nice try. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CherryTheTart

              "You have to understand Neo, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged, and many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it." Morpheus - The Matrix

              by pot on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:44:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  According to the Supreme Court (6+ / 0-)

          Corporations are people and money is speech. I don't think I'd recommend the SCOTUS as some sort of moral authority--and I don't think I'd recommend it as an intellectual one either. They're just a few (mostly) old, (mostly) white, (mostly) men who have an agenda. Sometimes that agenda serves the cause of liberty and freedom and sometimes it serves the cause of venality and greed. When they're full of shit it's up to the people they've wronged to stand up and tell them they're full of shit.

          Nobody has the right to colonize my body without my consent and nobody has the right to reduce me to the status of an incubator. That they think they do does not make it so.

          "Nothing's wrong, son, look at the news!" -- Firesign Theater

          by SmartAleq on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:54:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  And that's why the debate's not going to end. (0+ / 0-)

        Because right now, someone on the other side is saying that the "rights" of women don't have to be balanced with the rights of fetuses. (Except that hey're not saying "fetuses," they're saying "the unborn.")

        So there ya go.

        "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

        by Geenius at Wrok on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:35:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's not a debate. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NonnyO, ladyjames

          If the question is "What is 2 + 2" and I say "3.9999999" and the other guy says "Purple monkey dishwasher" then I think we're all going to agree that, while I might not be completely correct, at least I'm one hell of a lot closer than the crazy fuck over there.

          Yes, it's just about that unbalanced a "debate" with the forced birthers. Especially since they tend also to refuse to supply health care, schooling, nutritional assistance, and pretty much everything ELSE a fetus might need in its journey through life. Nope, all they care about is controlling the uterus it exudes from, using the "BUT THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN" excuse to control women and keep them in their place. Which, apparently, is barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen fetchin' a sammich and most definitely not voting, working, or anything else they might not approve of mobile uteruses doing.

          And to that I say "Fuck ALL a y'all!"

          "Nothing's wrong, son, look at the news!" -- Firesign Theater

          by SmartAleq on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:25:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The woman trumps the fetus, Done. (5+ / 0-)

        The woman is alive, she gets to decide.

        •  The Child trumps the woman, Done. (0+ / 0-)

          The Child is alive, the weak get protection.

          Saying it is easy. Wrong, but easy. Saying it doesn't make it true, or accurate, or factual. It does take the discussion into "Is! Is not!" territory.

          Now, let's drop the "Is! Is not!" style of rhetoric and move back into adult conversation.

          Less "WAAAAH!", more progress.

          by IndyGlenn on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 06:22:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  You'd be amazed (8+ / 0-)

    (and dismayed) at the concern-trollery of the patronizing "pro-choice" comments we're subjected to in this very venue.

    Let's continue to isolate, and encircle, these troubling and clueless remarks--like antibodies to a pathogen.

    Thanks for the diary.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:44:16 AM PDT

  •  if they feel it's alright for the state to control (18+ / 0-)

    abortion, then they feel it's alright for the state on impose abortion.  who controls that womb? women control that womb, not the state, otherwise they are saying they're pro-forced abortion.

  •  There is nothing to debate (17+ / 0-)

    thank you very, very much. There is not.

    All women have to keep doing is pointing that out, and doing so with guts, determination and resolve. We already fought this battle and dammit, we won. That gives us the right to say "Mind Your Own Business".

    The End.

    Nicely done :)

    It is time to #Occupy Media.

    by lunachickie on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:49:47 AM PDT

  •  The lifers want to end the debate too (9+ / 0-)

    They do it by using the same tactics a wife beater uses to break his wife's spirit:

    Make rules that limit her autonomy and punish her for any infraction.

    Economically and socially disenfrancise her, i.e., Hyde Amendment, zoning regulations and building codes to harrass providers.

    Shame and humilate and use the threat of violence to silence her and inflict violence anyway in a random manner. (He said, she said.)

    I have seen lifers up close and personal.  Any who are really concerned about fetal life, as opposed to intimidating and harrassing women and providers, have been sent to the back of the bus long ago.

    The abortion debate won't end just as the debate over race hasn't ended either.   Those who think the current President should be pushing a broom or serving massa have only changed the language they use to express their views.

    Don't look back, something may be gaining on you. - L. "Satchel" Paige

    by arlene on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:12:12 AM PDT

    •  You may be right. (0+ / 0-)

      It is time to take it to throwdown. Death before dishonor. I have daughters.

      I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

      by CherryTheTart on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:17:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And what if you lose? (0+ / 0-)

        When nothing will satisfy either of two sides short of totally vanquishing the other, the end results are not pretty. That's how you get Israel and Palestine, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Rwanda.

        "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

        by Geenius at Wrok on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:22:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I never lose when I assert my right to dignity (12+ / 0-)

          ... and privacy. I lose only when I cease to object.

          If you kill me, have I lost? I say Bonhoeffer to you.

          I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

          by CherryTheTart on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:27:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And I say Rorschach. (0+ / 0-)
            Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise.

            "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

            by Geenius at Wrok on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:44:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Isn't it funny... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            arlene, julifolo, ladyjames, CherryTheTart

            ... how female assertions of the simple and elementary right to dignity and privacy and personal autonomy end up being criticized as "uppity, snotty women trying to tell someone else what to do which 'jest ain't natcheral' in a patriarchal world where someone male must be dominant..." when a woman is only declaring her own right to decide what's best for herself, like any other adult?

            Oh, the odd twists and turns in the "logic" of "the other side...."

            Tsk, tsk, tsk.

            They really must come into the 21st century and pay attention to what's going on in the rest of the world where women have long been accepted as equals, even being elected to political offices and leading countries when America has only barely made it to electing representatives and senators and a few governors (some places haven't even made it that far yet, and won't ever achieve equality if religious reichwingnuts continue their exploitation of females in their states).

            I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

            by NonnyO on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:35:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Haven't you been watching (5+ / 0-)

          it is the other side that has already decided that there is no compromise.  We, the left, have been compromised into a corner by people who do not negotiate.

          "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

          by Sychotic1 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:56:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There is no "losing" (9+ / 0-)

          it' simply a  matter of keeping your religious (and malleable) dogma out of a woman's life. And for that matter, quit trying to force any of your religious beliefs on others. Once again, for those nosy so called Christians, I quote Matthew 7: 1-5

          Once again, I will remind you that region has changed the the attainment of personhood form one month after birth to gestation, over the years, to fit the trends of the times. At one time, infanticide was allowed by the church decreeing that an baby did not receive a soul until one month after its birth. IOW, no soul, no person, therefor, no murder. So this is not a matter of "murder" of a fetus at all. It is a matter of one religious group with ever changing so called "morals" seeking to inflict its dogma on everybody else.

          "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

          by azureblue on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:29:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The only full and fair treatment of this issue (0+ / 0-)

    I've ever seen:
    http://www.2think.org/...
    (Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan)

  •  Help crush women's rights: Vote Republican (6+ / 0-)

    Help CRUSH women's rights: Vote Romney

    This should be our message.

    We need to let the Christian Taliban that they would be welcome in Iraq, and they all would agree on how to treat women.

    One of the reasons we are who we are is we have "freedom"  Freedom for women to decide what they do with their body, not the government.

    This "Freedom" is fading away, and you can thank your church, and the Republican party.

    It's time to walk away from God, Jesus, your church.

    " With religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

    by EarTo44 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:45:40 AM PDT

  •  I love this. One addition: (10+ / 0-)

    European countries have far lower abortion rates for the reasons you mention, but also one more--far better safety nets.

    Imagine the effect on our abortion rate if we were  to adopt Sweden's parental leave policy. (16 months, divided between both parents, 2 must be used by the father, at about 90% of pay, paid equally by the government and the employer). But, of course, the wingnuts wouldn't ever go with that.

    "Maybe: it's a vicious little word that could slay me"--Sara Bareilles

    by ChurchofBruce on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:53:27 AM PDT

  •  I disagree with you on several points: (6+ / 0-)
    [B]ut mess with Roe v. Wade and abortion and contraception access and your ass is mine.
    --Roe v Wade specifically recognizes the state's interest in protecting the fetus after the point of viability, does it not? Much of what you write indicates that you yourself would "mess" with Roe v Wade, yes?
    My ova, my fetuses, my children and my sexual organs are mine. They are not YOURS.
    --others have commented on this, and were castigated. I have to echo the opinion that a child does not "belong" to any of us in the same way our gametes or sexual organs do. And I believe that the state has an interest in protecting children from parents when those parents would act to harm those children. I have a right to mutilate my own genitals, but not those of my daughter; she does not belong to me. I know that you did not directly assert such a right, but an absolutist assertion that a child belongs to you, and that no state may interfere, implies those parental "rights". (And please understand: by no means do I think you would commit atrocities against your own daughters; but, if you have such absolute rights of ownership, then so does everyone--and not everyone is as good and decent as you are.)

    You classify as rapists those of us who would act to reduce the numbers of abortions. This is ugly, offensive, and inaccurate. I want to reduce the number of abortions (and coronary artery bypass grafts, and appendectomies, etc.) I've also done abortions, counseled abortions, and I've cared for (and autopsied) victims of botched illegal abortions. Abortion, contraception, and sex education are matters of profound pubic policy importance. Your characterization as "perverse" any concern that a professional, or a private citizen, might have in these matters is unfair.

    I agree with you that we have a responsibility to educate people accurately regarding sexuality and health. And I further support universal health care that includes reproductive health, including contraception and abortion.

    I hope that we can agree on those things, without demonizing each other.

    "There is just one way to save yourself, and that's to get together and work and fight for everybody." ---Woody Guthrie (quoted by Jim Hightower in The Progressive Populist April 1, 2012, p3)

    by CitizenJoe on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:53:29 AM PDT

  •  Tampa strip clubs are busy prepping for the GOP... (6+ / 0-)

    article in today's orlando sentinel... they are already getting calls in preparation for entertainment of several GOP bigwigs, and they expect a onslaught of business with the "righteous" crowd....

    The Seminole Democrat
    Waking up Florida one person at a time

    by SemDem on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:56:18 AM PDT

  •  What? YOU get to decide? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CherryTheTart, BoiseBlue, NonnyO

    You get to decide what to do with  your own body?

    What arrogance!

    What arrogance it is for someone to try to make that decision for you. Offer to make a trade. "I will let you decide what to do with my body if you let me decide what to do with the body of YOUR wife and daughters. And that means anything I choose."

    Help! The GOP is NUTS (& the Dems need some!)

    by Tuba Les on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:45:25 AM PDT

    •  AND... (7+ / 0-)

      ... I get to CHOOSE what to do with male bodies (particularly those of legislators and religious reichwingers).

      That means I get to CHOOSE whether or not your testes remain in your body or whether or not you can keep them but only have the vasa deferentia cut, then surgically reattached if I CHOOSE whether or not you may or may not become a biological father.

      Since I am an Old Crone and Crones are considered Wise, then I promise to make Wise Decisions regarding Male Bodies and their fitness as viable biological specimens of manhood or fatherhood.  Some are, after all, good sexual partners but would make lousy fathers.  Others would make great fathers, but not necessarily good sexual partners.  I will CHOOSE wisely for you, and you don't have to worry about the decision.

      Now, when will we make laws dictating female decisions regarding male bodies...?

      As a Wise Crone, I will nominate myself as one of the Deciders of Male Fitness.

      I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

      by NonnyO on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:13:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't care what anyone else thinks about (12+ / 0-)

    abortion and if its a baby or cells. MY body is mine or I am owned by the state. It really is that simple.

  •  It's a fair question (10+ / 0-)

    but an easy answer.

    Those who oppose abortion (probably, somewhat, maybe genuinely) believe fetuses are people, so there are two opposing interests at stake, the woman's and the fetus', so where to strike the balance?

    The reason it's an easy answer is, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses are not people.   Until they develop conscious, human brains, they are not people.  They have no rights.

    They may have souls, if so, let their church of choice take care of them.

    Late in gestation, there may be human consciousness.  Roe recognizes the possibility of appropriate state regulation of the last trimester.  Of course, given a choice between the mother's health and the fetus', there is no choice.

    Now, expectant parents may have genuine feelings about their unborn children.  Those are legitimate, but not to be confused with the feelings and rights of the child itself, which do not exist.  Anti-abortionists try to exploit those natural emotions, to make any woman who does not wish to give birth feel guilty for not wanting the child.  Fuck that.

  •  Has anyone noticed that Genesis 2:7, the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CherryTheTart, julifolo

    scripture that chronicles the first live human being, describes him as a fully formed human outside a womb who was not alive and had no soul until he was breathing?

    And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
    I'm not sure I would describe him as fully formed, though.  He had no umbilical cord nor navel.

    History merely repeats itself; it doesn't cure its own ills. That is the burden of the present.

    by ZedMont on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:14:55 AM PDT

  •  I grew up in a pro-life home, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coffeetalk

    so I know their position well.  The debate boils down to whether abortion is or is not murder.  If a fetus is a living human being, with full, equal rights under the law, then it doesn't really matter if the bun is in your oven.  Sorry, but these arguments are irrelevant to the other side.  

    "The shame would be if Democrats get thrown out of office without ever having tried Democratic policies." -Bill Maher

    by DirkFunk on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:46:46 PM PDT

    •  But one CAN make the argument (0+ / 0-)

      Successfully, that BEFORE viability, that the rights of that fetus shouldn't trump the rights of the woman to control her own body.

      If they can't live outside the womb, then they cannot be legitimately given superior rights to a living human being and make a woman's right to control her own body inferior.

      That's the fatal flaw in this diarist's argument.

      We don't have unlimited rights to do what we want to - there are limits that society places upon us. One of the underlying precepts behind those strictures is that one's rights to liberty and freedom is legitimately limited when one starts impigning upon another's rights to liberty and freedom.

      You can 'punch' the air to your heart's content. You can hit a punching bag all you want. You can't punch another person unless you're defending yourself or in a sanctioned boxing match.

      And so, a WINNING argument is that a woman should have superior and unlimited rights to control her own body while the fetus that remains inside her womb is NOT viable - can't live outside the womb. After viability, there CAN BE arguments that a viable fetus' right to enter the world, in some cases, are superior to the woman's right to stop being an unwilling incubator.

      One can't "murder" a non-viable fetus. It's not possible to take the life of a group of cells that can't sustain life without a direct attachment to a placenta. It's not a human being until it can sustain life outside the womb. If it leaves the womb before viability, it never becomes a "human being". It remains a non-viable fetus.

    •  Oh no it is not an irrelevant argument per se. (9+ / 0-)

      Even if the fetus is given full civil rights, no born individual has a right to any organ or even one drop of blood from my body, though he may die.

      Unless all these Forced Birthers intend to make their kidneys available (you only need one to survive) to dying children who need a kidney on demand, they need to shut their pervert mouths.

      Or they can admit that to them women are not human beings and do not have equal civil rights.

      I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

      by CherryTheTart on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:08:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A corpse (even female) has more bodily integrety. (7+ / 0-)

        Unless you sign an organ card, the hopsital can't even harvest corneas without family permission.

        And no one can be forced to donate an organ or even blood, even for their own children. The generally accepted definition of "person" seems to include "no forced donations".

        But pregnancy is different. So it seems the definition of "person" doesn't include pregnant women, ... unless the pregnant woman is doing what society expects of her.

        Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

        by julifolo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:28:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Nice emotion, but the logic fizzles (0+ / 0-)
    My ova, my fetuses, my children and my sexual organs are mine.
    There are arguments in favor of legalizing infanticide up to, say, 90 days after birth. But politically that's a nonstarter — except perhaps to compromise with those who want to outlaw abortion in the last 90 days before birth at a law which outlaws infanticide immediately after birth — that is compromise on "0".

    Assuming we don't want to make a pro-infanticide argument at all, we need to recognize that society has an interest in the well being of each other's children.

  •  Tipped, Rec'd, and Hotlisted... (7+ / 0-)

    ... and I clicked the heart next to your name as a new Follower.

    EXCELLENT post!  Short, sweet, accurate, and very well written.

    This Old Crone thanks you.

    My wish is that there had never been ANY laws dictating what may or may not be done regarding fetuses.  It's a medical issue in some cases, not a decision.  A dead fetus that was decomposing for three months instead of naturally being expelled by my grandmother's body is what killed her in 1938.  The dr. noted on the back of the death certificate that the fetus died in March.  He prescribed bed rest and seems genuinely baffled that her body didn't expel the dead fetus.  When she finally went into labor the end of May, the fact that her body was poisoned already plus the blood loss and parturition effort all combined to kill her.  Five children, ages 15 down to two, were left motherless with her death, and the effects of that tragedy still reverberate down through the generations, even to those who never had a chance to know her.  At every family gathering down through the years when I was a child, one of my gram's sisters would start to talk about her sister and loudly proclaim that 'if she had been a cow or a horse, her sister would have been treated more humanely and she wouldn't have died.'

    If there had been zero antiquated and barbaric abortion laws in effect in those days, the dead fetus would have been removed and that would have been the end of it.

    Better yet, if midwives who used old herbal remedies that cleanly expelled fetuses had been tending her and not an ignorant old doctor, there's every chance she would have lived to a ripe old age - or at least long enough to see her grandchildren.

    As far as I'm concerned, all barbaric laws controlling women's bodies worse than livestock need to be completely removed from the books.  Leave women to tend their own uteruses, vaginas, ovaries, and decisions about whether or not to have a child or children and/or whether or not to nurse said offspring with their own mammary glands to those who were born with said organs (since nursing is more healthy for her offspring when she can do so - I know some can't because of inverted nipples and other physical conditions)..., and all others can STFU since it doesn't concern them.

    And, yes, I include myself in that.  I'm now too old to have children, and it's none of my business what a younger woman of child-bearing age does with her own body.  I do hope for her own sake and lack of pain for herself that she keeps her body healthy on many levels, has vaccinations, does mammograms and pap smears and yearly physicals and the like, but - technically - it's still none of my business.

    Still, in an ideal world, laws about abortion and controlling women's bodies should never have been written in the first place.

    I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

    by NonnyO on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:12:26 PM PDT

  •  Right on, Cherry!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Abortion is a (11+ / 0-)

    wonderful thing!!!

    I fully understand that for some people it is "killing", or "murder", and that's fine. They are absolutely welcome to view it as such, and not have abortion.

    HOWEVER!!! I don't view it as such. I view it as a 17 yr old who fucked around and got knocked-up (like so many of my friends in the 70's), and DID NOT WANT TO BE PREGNANT!!!
    I was in no position to be a mother. My mother sure as hell didn't want to be a mother to my baby, and there was no way in the world I could go through 9 months of pregnancy, give birth, and then hand it off to a complete stranger and hope for the best. (I think adoption is wonderful option for some women. Personally, I would have felt guilty and angst for the rest of my life!).

    I am a a HUGE proponent of abortion "on demand", and "federally subsidized" abortions. Yes, it would be so much better if women never had unplanned pregnancies. But that's a freakin fantasy conjured up by someone who is sexually repressed and/or on drugs!!!  lol  Seriously, we are hardwired to bonk as often as possible (most of us are). Sometimes when we bonk we are young and stupid, sometimes we are poor and can't afford birth control, sometimes we are drunk, raped, molested, etc, etc.......  So for all those many times that we find ourselves in the horrible positiion of an unwanted pregnancy we need to have as many options to choose from as possible.

    btw--- I'm not some sex crazed maniac, who has had 30 abortions!! I'm just real....  I've been there, done that and I'm not ashamed. At the same time, I talked to my children at a very young teenage age and explained the birds and the bees, abortion, told them I'd had one, and how upsetting it was, that sex should be put on the backburner until after high school, blah, blah...  at the same time, made it very clear that they could tell me ANYTHING, and ask ANY questions, and that if they were going to be sexually active please let me know so we could get them on birth control. Both were virgins until their 20's and my son waited until he was married????  Go figure!!   lol  

    Anywho, good diary, couldn't agree with you more. All the moralizing, and telling us when we should and shouldn't have sex is just BS. My hubby and I are now in our 50's, and have grandchildren. We also have the best sex ever!!!!  Read it and weep Rick Santorum!

     

    Corporations before people.... it's the American way!

    by Lucy2009 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:20:53 PM PDT

    •  The alternative back then: (6+ / 0-)

      1. Shamed.

      2. Sent away.

      3. Forced to give up baby.

      I don't think abortions are wonderful, but they are often far better than any other choices available to the woman who is contemplating one.

      We don't have perfect birth control and we don't have perfect self-control and we don't need people to be perfectly self-righteous.

      The GOP is the party of mammon. They mock what Jesus taught.

      by freelunch on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:45:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My mother was a proponent of abortion in the 60's. (5+ / 0-)

        I can remember watching her on the evening news being interviewed when I was about seven yrs old. It was so exciting to see her on the telly! I knew that everyone in my family (grands included) was very proud of her. I didn't really understand why at the time, but can you imagine!!  In the 60's!!!  My poor RW father must have thought she was off her rocker!!!  lol  lol

        Anywho, when I told her I was prego, she said "Ok, l'll call Planned Parenthood".  There was never any moralizing, discussion as to whether I should give birth, etc. It was just lets take care of this problem. Having gotten knocked-up herself at 17, she wasn't about to see me go down the same road!  lol   But most girls are not so lucky to have a mother like that. That is why I believe in subsidies for abortions, and why I believe that you shouldn't have to have a parents consent.  

        btw--when I say abortions are wonderful.... I mean that they save lives. That when the other option is giving birth when you don't want to, an abortion is a truly wonderful thing.  I love my kids more than anything in the world, but I would never want that responsibility to be forced on someone who doesn't want it. It's way too important, and precious a responsibility to be foisted on someone willy nilly. So I'm all about free condoms/pills/IUD's, etc for anyone in the U.S., under any circumstances and if that fails.... I'm all about abortion. We should love and treasure our children, take good care of them, and think of them as the beautiful resources and future that they are..... not as burdens that you resent!  There is too much of that in society, imho.

        Corporations before people.... it's the American way!

        by Lucy2009 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:25:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Would tip and rec 1,000 times if I could (7+ / 0-)

    Well said, Cherry.

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:33:45 PM PDT

  •  I don't see why the fundies care. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CherryTheTart, NonnyO, LSophia, ladyjames

    It seems antithetical to me.  They can have all the children they want, I don't care. If there are more of us, they lose, which is why they've taken to rigging elections and voter suppression and lying their asses off 24/7 because the default setting is: not them.

    I have 3 daughters and I am training them to be militant harpy infidels. ;)

    •  It's all about control (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CherryTheTart

      If women are forced to bear and tend children, they will be more dependent on men.  

      They will also be less likely to:

      - Demand equal pay for equal work
      - Write letters to the Editor
      - Demonstrate or be politically active
      - Run for Congress

      Or do any number of landscape-shifting, needle-moving things.

      Besides, they view childbirth as the "Curse of Eve" - i.e. "In sorrow you shall bring forth children."  Of course, Adam got cursed, too, with the need to labor with his hands, but I don't see any of them lining up to give away their machinery, cars, tractors, or any other technology, labor-saving devices.

  •  Like it or not, the argument isn't over (0+ / 0-)

    until we resolve the issue of when the fetus becomes a person. But personally, I don't think it should be as much of an issue as it is. There are very few third trimester abortions, and almost all of them are due to health concerns. I can't understand why a woman would choose to abort a viable fetus without such a reason, but there are such a small number of them that we shouldn't waste much time worrying about them. The Conservatives use this tiny minority to argue against choice, and we should stop helping them.

    "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

    by tb92 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:06:29 PM PDT

    •  Who's "we"? Who get's to decide that issue? (4+ / 0-)

      We are never going to get 100% consensus on "when the fetus becomes a person". If the majority agrees that a fetus is a person at conception, does that mean the majority gets to tell a woman what to do with her body? I say no. So, that issue is irrelevant, in my view.

      "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:20:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And your view is irrelevant to the law. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CherryTheTart

        I agree that this should be a question that a woman decides for herself, but if you live in a society, you must live by that society's rules. At the moment, most American's do not want to outlaw all abortions, but do favor restrictions. You can try to convince them otherwise, but you can't just decide that their opinion doesn't matter.

        "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

        by tb92 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 04:03:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you can say this about practically any issue (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tardis10

          on which someone has a view that differs from the majority.   I think that's beside the point.

          "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

          by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 04:12:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I've never seen a good argument against this. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10

    "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

    by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:15:12 PM PDT

  •  You want an unequivocal stand from Dems? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CherryTheTart, pfiore8

    Today's Dems might support your rights, but not without equivocation; not without conceding that the right-wing has some "legitimate" points or concerns; not without asserting our empathy with them; not without asserting that we would like abortion to be rare; not without conceding our confusion as to when "life" begins (as if that were the issue); not without seeking a middle ground with those who want to stick their noses into your private life, as if a moderate invasion of your body and your privacy is okay.

    No, today's Dems are unequivocally equivocal in all things.

    "The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles." Subterranean Homesick Blues, Bob Dylan

    by psnyder on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:22:21 PM PDT

  •  Ding, ding, ding! (6+ / 0-)

    You really know how to tell it!  
    Can you hear me cheering you on?  Can you hear me stomping my feet and shouting, "You go, girl!?"

    I can't make my applause any louder and I'm with you all the way on this.  Count me in and color me pissed!

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 03:20:14 PM PDT

  •  Cherry, I'm with you 1000 percent... (7+ / 0-)

    Forcing an unwilling woman to give birth is rape. Perhaps judicial rape is the better term (like judicial murder).
    If only the so-called "pro-lifers" had to face their victims...what would they do to enact their wish? Chain a woman in a basement until she gives birth?

  •  The only alternative to safe abortion (4+ / 0-)

    is wire hangers. OK, well maybe that's harsh. There is, of course, adoption.

    But if abortion were made illegal, it would only drive it into back alleys, or fore women to "seek other means". And while adoption seems all nice and fuzzy, it can't be there for every unwanted pregnancy. That's just reality.

    I was alive and aware before Roe v. Wade became a reality. Go Google pictures of botched abortions. Go see the blood and the gruesome photos of dead women (and fetuses).

    The right wing, and many who consider themselves Democrats, choose NOT to see the reality of a world where abortion is completely illegal. They choose NOT to think about what will happen. Many are simply ignorant. And many others are simply irrational.

    Abortion has been around for thousands of years. It was only illegal, pretty much, for 100 years. You can never STOP it. You can only make it safe, legal, and rare - and available to ensure the best outcome possible.

    No...more...wire...hangers...EVER.

    Isn’t it ironic to think that man might determine his own future by something so seemingly trivial as the choice of an insect spray. ~ Rachel Carson, Silent Spring ~

    by MA Liberal on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:27:31 PM PDT

    •  This is the argument for me, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CherryTheTart

      governing is one part ideology, one part practicality. Although conservatives make a pretty good argument that people should not be having abortions, they make a pretty piss-poor one that abortion should be made illegal.

      Ironically, what would ensure less abortions that making it illegal is promoting a comprehensive sex education and establishing a universal health care system. The right does not like either of these things.

  •  Nicely said. (4+ / 0-)

    It has never failed to astonish me just how much of what we call "traditional morality" really just amounts to controlling the sex lives of women.  The patriarchs of old, as well as their modern heirs, must live out their lives with a gut wrenching fear of empowered women.  It must keep them up at night in a cold sweat wondering what enjoyable things women must be doing with their bodies over which they do not hold veto power.  Why else invent such a misogynistic voyeur of a sky god to rule them?

    As for the procedure itself, it could be said that avoiding the unwanted pregnancy altogether is better than undergoing an abortion, but that's true of any invasive medical procedure.  And it only begs the question why the same people so strongly oppose contraception and sex education as well, given that these things could reduce abortion to the bare minimum required by medical necessity.

    The answer is simple.  It isn't about the child and never has been, but about maintaining the control over women that they see as their right.  The child just gives them a better sounding argument than they'd have if they had to explain that they really just see women as chattel.

  •  I agree with you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia, CherryTheTart

    CTT, and I'm standing up with you on the biting thing as well.

  •  Nothing more to say (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LSophia, CherryTheTart

    That's that

  •  Agree wholeheartedly, with one major exception (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger

    Once you give birth, i.e. have a child, that child belongs to no one but his or herself. Parents are merely the default caretakers.  Parents do not own children.  That is such a 19th century construct ... one, I believe, that Newt Gingrich would agree with.  Parents may own the birthright, or the adoptive right, to make decisions on behalf of their minor child. But their custodial rights are subject to the rule of law and the Constitution rights of their child.

    This is where pro-choice "absolutists" lose liberal pro-choice parents.  We don't think we own our children.  The old-style absolutists did.  

    I assume you are not one of them.

    "Americans, while occasionally willing to be serfs, have always been obstinate about being peasantry."

    by Glinda on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:18:15 PM PDT

    •  You are politely expressing a thought many others (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Militarytracy

      ... have expressed ever so much less politely. So I am inclined to reply:

      My children belong to (pick one):

      1. You.
      2. The State.
      3. Me.

      I made them. I say they are mine.

      I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

      by CherryTheTart on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:03:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  None of the above. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glinda, Dr Swig Mcjigger

        Your children are not your possessions.  They're human beings with rights and freedoms which you are legally prohibited from violating.  You're the caretaker of your children, not their owner.

        It sickens me that someone considers their children to be "owned" by them, like chattel or slaves.  That's a very Old Testament view of offspring.

        •  Children are not able to care for (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CherryTheTart

          themselves.  When the state takes over from parents, have you noticed how many rights those children have and how much anybody gives a shit about that or them for that matter?

          Old Testament my ass........REALITY

          Don't get me wrong, I cherish my children.  I chose both of them.  I will go to my grave fighting for them and protecting them.  Have you noticed how impossible it is to even provide for children though these days?

          •  So you think your children are your property? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dr Swig Mcjigger

            That you can do whatever you want to them, and the State has no right to intervene?

            Bullshit.  Start slapping your kids around, or locking them in cages like dogs, or not feeding them properly, etc., and the State WILL step in and deprive you of your guardianship.  As it damn well should.

            That when the State takes custody of children doesn't always work out rosy for the kids is utterly irrelevant.  That's a flaw in the system, not a challenge to the notion that the State has every right to remove your children from your custody should you prove an egregiously unfit parent.

            That we're even arguing this on a progressive site is astonishing...

            •  I chose to be a parent (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              julifolo, CherryTheTart

              Why would I cage my children or slap them?  I am deeply invested in them.  I chose them having a good idea how hard things would be, and now things in this society are even harder.  The state on the other hand feels free to do heinous things to children.  They beat them all the time in Alabama schools for tiny infractions.  They call it licks.  By the time the state is done with you in Alabama and Public Interest is done with you, you know who hates you and who slaps you around and it isn't me.  It's a bunch of forced birth anti-choice Christians!

              •  You're dodging the point. (0+ / 0-)
                Why would I cage my children or slap them?  I am deeply invested in them.
                We're talking a hypothetical hear, not what you would or wouldn't really do.  Plenty of parents abuse and neglect their children.  We have documented cases of parents keeping their abused in neglected kids in cages.

                Do you think the State has the right to intervene and remove those kids from such situations, YES/NO?  If no, why do you think it's better for kids to be left in abusive situations?

                Your citing anecdotal evidence (which I don't even know is true, you could be making shit up) about isolated cases in which agents of the State don't act in the best interest of children.  That is entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not, as a premise, the State has the right to intercede on behalf of abused/neglected children and remove them from the custody of their birth parents.  If you're suggesting that every kid for whom the State intervened would have been better off left with their abusive/neglectful parents, then you're simply insane or so woefully ignorant that you're probably beyond reason.

                •  You are dodging the point (0+ / 0-)

                  There is no certain benevolent protector of children.  That is a myth!!!!  The closest most of us will come to it on the first day we arrive on the planet is our mother.  Hopefully she is capable of caring for us and wanted us, otherwise it is uphill and agony for almost all of us that get that scenario.

                  Childhood is a crapshoot, my mom died what I was seven.  Take my word for it, nobody will care about you as much as your mother if she is functional and able...NOBODY.  Your dad if you are lucky will come the closest, might even appear at times to break even.

                  •  No, I'm not dodging the point (0+ / 0-)

                    I am trying to figure out what yours is.  You say:

                    There is no certain benevolent protector of children.
                    Who said there was?  Not I.  You're arguing a strawman if that's your point.

                    What I said is that the State has the right to remove children from abusive/neglectful parents.  Will they always be better off if removed?  No, but that's utterly irrelevant.  That foster care and living in state facilities might be bad for the kid isn't the point, since we know that living with a parent that beats them, molests them or locks them in a cage in their own filth is certainly bad for them.

                    And your personal story aside, your claim that

                    Take my word for it, nobody will care about you as much as your mother if she is functional and able...NOBODY.  Your dad if you are lucky will come the closest, might even appear at times to break even.
                    is bullshit.  You undermine this very claim earlier by saying childhood is a crapshoot.  Your personal experience is nice, but totally not indicative of a universal truth.

                    Mothers can be just as abusive and neglectful of their children as anyone.  You can trust ME on this, as my brother is currently going through a divorce with a woman who treated their children in a matter that any sane person would find hair-raising.  

                    Fathers certainly can be just as loving as mothers, and even moreso (as my brother unquestionably is with his children).

                    You're making unfounded claims to try and justify an unconscionable stance while ignoring the very real and prevalent facts that far too many parents--mothers and fathers--are unfit to raise children and the kids are better off anywhere but with their birth parents.

                    •  Once upon a time (0+ / 0-)

                      The "State" considered Jerry Sandusky a benevolent protector of children.  Gave him sway over children's lives while their parents complained, for the kids that he abused that had parents in their lives.

                      •  That's not true. (0+ / 0-)

                        Jerry Sandusky's victims were not awarded custody to him by the State.  They were participants in youth programs that he ran.  ONE parent complained after an incident in 1999, but did not press charges.  That was her decision.  Otherwise, the parents weren't complaining about Sandusky, because they didn't know what was going on.

                        Regardless, the Sandusky saga has NOTHING to do with child protective services.  None.  Nice attempt at deflection by citing a hot button issue, but no dice.

                        You haven't answered my question: do you think it's right for the State to remove children from abusive/neglectful parents?  All of your answers so far indicate "No," which tells me you're A-OK with the State standing aside while a parent beats his kid to death.

                        •  I have never ever ever been okay (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          julifolo

                          With anyone beating anyone to death.  Time after time though in right to choose debates, anti-choice forced birth individuals act as if their primary concern is children.  They also use words like "the state" and "public interest" and embellish upon these words a benevolence toward children and would be children and straw children and hypothetical children that exceeds that of parents.   If any of it were true, the state would never kill more children than all parents combined.  If any of it were true, the DailyKos group Tree Climbers would not exist.

                          Usually when a woman becomes a mother, it is accompanied by a biochemical response.  For many of us when they take the baby after birth to be washed and evaluated it is a kind of suffering.  My best friend described waiting for the return of her first newborn like this when she demanded her child returned, "I don't care if I gave birth to an old shoe, I want my shoe now!"

                          If you breastfeed, each time you feed your baby this biochemical alteration of your brain is sealed deeper and deeper.  For most of us, we would kill protecting our child and die doing it, it is IMO a biological imperative second only to the biological drive to breed.

                          It is true that this does not happen for a few women or that dysfunctions, addictions, can get in the way of this.  That is not the norm though.  And for most of us it extends to our grandchildren as well.  Do Not mess with my children!  Consider yourself warned! And no state agency or employee will ever care about my own DNA more than I will.  I was a juvenile probation officer moons ago, back when it seems to me that "the state" cared more for individuals than it does now, and for most of the people I worked with the kids they "oversaw" was just a paycheck and it was impossible for almost all of them to view all of those forgotten and abandoned kids as being of the same importance as their own DNA....their own kids.

                          So don't come around me spouting nonsense about a benevolent "state" where children are concerned, it doesn't exist.  "The state" has the same consciousness, conscience, ultimate responsibility, and imperatives that a corporation does.

                          •  Again, you're utterly missing the point (0+ / 0-)

                            and engaging in borderline dishonesty, too boot.

                            Lots of parents--including mothers--are terribly unfit and abuse/neglect their children in horrible ways.  While it is not the "norm," it is pervasive enough that it happens every day to multiple children.  There is an overwhelming number of documented cases of children being abused by their parents, it's just a fact.

                            So again, does the State not have the right to intercede in such cases?  Or do you think, no matter the abuse, the child should be kept with the parents, as their "property?"

                            You keep making unsupported claims, so I'm going to call you on it: provide actual evidence that the State interventions cause more harm than good to the children, or stop making the claim.  You already completely misrepresented the Sandusky situation (wherein Child Services was actually responsible for ENDING his abuse and bringing him to justice).  So forgive me if I refuse to take your word on it and find your anecdotal claims unimpressive.

                            Do Not mess with my children!  Consider yourself warned!
                            If you could see me roll my eyes.  More huffery and puffery like Cherry's ridiculous repetition.  Nobody talked about "messing with your children."  But if that's how you want to play it, here's your own warning:  if you abuse, molest or neglect your children, the State can and should deprive you of your parental rights ASAP.  Try and stop them, should evidence of such come to light.
                          •  You are making unsupported claims (0+ / 0-)

                            Straw children, straw child abusers, and a benevolent state and public interest that does not exist according to so much evidence available right in front of your face and everyone elses that it isn't even funny.

                            I won't engage you in your point because the rock solid foundation of your point is nonexistent.  The state will intervene in some cases of child abuse and not in others, the state will drop children off in foster homes that neglect them, abuse them, and kill them too.  The state has no feelings.  The state can almost never be made accountable for the abuse that it does to others.  The state is not benevolent to my children beyond me, it never has been, it never will be and that is the fact for the vast vast majority of mothers out there.  They do not care, will never care about our children more than we do....and they certainly have no business in my reproductive rights.

              •  You have my complete support for your message. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Militarytracy

                Think a thousand times before you take a child from its Mother.

                I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

                by CherryTheTart on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 10:04:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  You come anywhere near my children (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Militarytracy

          ... without my permission and I will show you what "mine" means.

          I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

          by CherryTheTart on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:45:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You start abusing your children and (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dr Swig Mcjigger

            failing to properly care for them, and the State will show you that they are not "yours."

            Do you think the State has the right to remove children from homes with abusive/neglectful parents, YES/NO?

            You've repeated this hyperaggressive phrase several times, but that doesn't make it any more relevant to the debate.  It's just grandstanding.

            •  I repeat for the DIM one. And for the third time. (0+ / 0-)

              If you come anywhere near my children without my permission, I will show you what the word MINE means.

              I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

              by CherryTheTart on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 05:42:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No one is talking about coming near your children (0+ / 0-)

                so knock it off.  Your repeating it ad naseum doesn't make it any more relevant.

                Do you think the State has the right to remove children from homes with abusive/neglectful parents, YES/NO?

                Or do you think Andrea Yates had the right to do what she did to her kids?

                •  I repeat: (0+ / 0-)

                  If you come anywhere near my children without my permission, I will make you understand what "mine" means.

                  We can go on like this forever. I am not tired. Or bored.

                  If you actually want to have a conversation with me, you need to step back and change your act. Carry on.

                  I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

                  by CherryTheTart on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 10:01:48 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, we can go on forever, because you are in (0+ / 0-)

                    no way addressing the actual points being made, you're just repeating a non-sequitur and pretending it has significance.  

                    I will repeat then: Do you think the State has the right to remove children from homes with abusive/neglectful parents, YES/NO?

                    If you can actually answer that, which gets to the crux of the issue, THEN we can have a conversation.  Until then, you're just grandstanding.  And if you don't answer, I will assume you believe that the State does not have the right to intervene, meaning you're A-OK with children being subjected to abusive/neglectful parents and that they have absolute rights to treat their children as they wish.  Do you believe that?

      •  I have them (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CherryTheTart, tardis10, julifolo

        And the state doesn't care about them.  Take my word for it.  I have one that has medical challenges and our fine "state" has tried to kill him for profit numerous times.  It is fine for the state to kill children protecting corporate profit, it is fine in many states for your neighbor to kill your children on the way home from buying skittles, but I don't dare take a look at the world as a whole....and how really fucked up and impossible it is right now in the "state" of scarcity....and say that I can't bring a new life into this mess before it is a human being.

        Here in Alabama I can go to jail too if my child ditches school.  Not kidding, a local judge runs on that and gets reelected on that.  When my child destroys property I pay.  If my child is hungry in this insane economy I can be charged with abuse....not the state.  And when the state IS in charge of my children they often place them in horrible foster care situations where vile abuses of all kinds take place over and over again and it is never accountable.

        I can't stand the pro-life arguments.  It's all bullshit of the first order.  People want this scarcity and denial of needs driven culture and society and at the same time they demand every child be born....be born to what?  To suffer!  And many situations out there will be mostly suffering, and they dare call me the evil one.  There are worse things out there than not being born, many of them happening right here in our precious America.

      •  4. themselves (3+ / 0-)

        If you say your children "belong" to you, just abuse them and see how long you are allowed to keep your "property".

        Young persons have their rights and no one, not mommy, not daddy, I mean NO ONE, should be allowed to take away those rights. You feel strongly about abortion? I feel just as strongly about human rights, and abusive parents.

        I made them. I say they are mine.
        HUMANS ARE NOT PROPERTY!!

        Now that we have both made highly-charged emotional declarations, and have satisfied the desire to thump chests and roar at the challenger, can we please go back to a more rational discussion?

        Less "WAAAAH!", more progress.

        by IndyGlenn on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 06:34:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I repeat: (0+ / 0-)

          If you come anywhere near my children without my permission and I WILL SHOW YOU WHAT THE WORD 'MINE' MEANS.

          And for the love of language, look up the word "belong."

          I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

          by CherryTheTart on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 04:17:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you are an abusive parent, we will.... (0+ / 0-)

            Here is one of the big issues in this thread. Your children have rights of their own that will trump your rights as a parent. Your children have rights to their bodies and lives that win out over your rights as a parent and adult.

            They are persons, just like you are. Each and every person has rights. Little, big, old, young, male, female, it doesn't matter. Every person has rights.

            Individual rights often come into conflict. The famous example is "Your right to swing your fist ends just before my nose." Your right to freedom of action is curtailed and limited in order to preserve my right to health and freedom from injury.

            As a society, we restrict the rights of those who cannot exercise good judgement, and give authority over them to persons who can exercise good judgement on their behalf. Children are an example of this. The child's rights are still there; the child just doesn't know what those rights are, and how to enjoy them. It is the parent's responsibility to make sure that the child's rights are respected and honored.

            When a parent stops being a responsible caretaker, and instead becomes the criminal that is violating the child's rights, then society has the justification and authority to step in and see that the child's rights are being honored. An abusive parent has failed in this trust, and so should be removed. The government, as the hands of society, WILL do this.

            One of the problems is that no every individual agrees with the consensus decision of society. Well, that's why we have a democracy to make laws, and a police force to see that they are followed. I may not agree with all of the laws and methods, but I DO agree with the fundamentals of the system.

            We are actually arguing over "what is a person?" I think that everyone here agrees that a person is entitled to legal rights and privileges. We just don't agree on exactly what a person is.

            Less "WAAAAH!", more progress.

            by IndyGlenn on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 09:10:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you come anywhere near my children (0+ / 0-)

              ... without my knowledge or consent, I will show you what the word "mine" means.

              I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

              by CherryTheTart on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 10:08:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm done with this thread (0+ / 0-)

                Your useless repetition of the same phrase shows that further discussion is pointless and a waste of my time. Either you simply do not understand the point that I am trying to communicate, or you refuse to think about any alternative viewpoints. Pity.

                Less "WAAAAH!", more progress.

                by IndyGlenn on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 09:05:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Can you do anything besides (0+ / 0-)

            repeat yourself?

            •  i mean this for cherry (0+ / 0-)

              nt.

            •  Where boundary setting and uncivilized (0+ / 0-)

              ... humans are concerned, probably not. It takes awhile for the unconscious to become conscious.

              I will stop when I am sure you have gotten the message.

              I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

              by CherryTheTart on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 10:07:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If there's nothing to negotiate, why not repeat? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CherryTheTart

                To some people "negotiating" is badgering the other person until they get what they want.

                If you try to explain in other words they think they're still "negotiating". If someone wants to have an honest discussion, I discuss. But if it's obviously "You're wrong, I'm right" -- repeating yourself is a good approach.

                Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                by julifolo on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:31:00 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yep. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  julifolo

                  In psychotherapy it is called "broken recording" someone. I agree that it is quite effective when dealing with those folks who come with an agenda, control issues, and no people skills.

                  You impress the beejesus out of me, Woman. Who and what are you, if you don't mind my asking.

                  I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

                  by CherryTheTart on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:44:35 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I work in a library, I'm a socialist (sort of) (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    CherryTheTart

                    I do cataloging, though I'm civil service, not professional.

                    Years ago, I was in several "negotiations" where it was actually various people not wanting "no" for an answer. And I realized if I gave reasons, they'd just try to convince me my reason was "an exuse" & not a good one therefore I obviously was now obligated to do the job they wanted me to do, as if my time didn't matter. (I now have a phrase for my fall-back technique, thanks.)

                    I had an abortion 30 years ago, and there was no access problem, nor did I have trouble getting my tubes tied after the IUD failure though I had no children. I'm absolutely disgusted at how access has been curtailed.

                    I've debated abortion many different places, mostly on line, and I take notes of what seems to work and what doesn't.

                    Being sort of a socialist, one of the earliest writings -- Engles, I think, not Marx, was how women were the first oppressed class, once a class system stated to develope. (I haven't read the orignals so much as other people's discussions/summaries.) I seem to see everything from a class war/racism point of view. I'm not a full socialist because I'm not boycotting voting for democrats. But I try to hold them accountable.

                    Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                    by julifolo on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:02:59 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thank you. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      julifolo

                      You are every bit the thoughtful and purposeful person I thought you were. Well met.

                      I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

                      by CherryTheTart on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:19:02 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Ditto, thanks (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        CherryTheTart

                        I like your approach also. Too many people, I think, get hung up on "logic" and "objective" and don't pragmatically look at the real world or the historical record.

                        Something looks good in theory, doesn't necessarily mean it's going to work on the ground. So history is a good resource. It's not as if these situations haven't happened in a similar way before.

                        Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

                        by julifolo on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:39:16 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  i have not said 1 word about (0+ / 0-)

                your kids.

  •  I wonder (0+ / 0-)

    if this means that there should be no laws against prostitution and pornography.

  •  What the hell? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger
    I include in the set (rapists) those who describe themselves as 'prochoice' whose benevolence includes acting economically and morally to 'make abortion rare.' Bugger off. You are all intrusive, annoying, and perverted in your focus. Mind your own sex organs. I do not want you thinking about or doing anything about mine.
    I'm rather shocked that more people haven't challenged this garbage.

    So I'm a rapist because I think it's a good thing to make the need for abortions minimal?  Because I think contraception should be widely available to anyone who wants it and children should receive thorough, responsible sex education to prevent unwanted pregnancies, I'm a rapist?  That doesn't even make rhetorical sense, much less logical sense.

    There is absolutely nothing "intrusive" or "perverted" about advocating contraception usage and seeking to limit unwanted pregnancies.  You might find it "annoying," but I don't give a shit.  We're not talking about forcing people to use contraception if they choose not to, after all.

    And yes, this entire rant fails because if the people you're arguing with don't accept the premise that the fetus is not a human being and thus entitled to the same protections as any other human, then nothing is "ended."  So this is just a self-congratulatory high-five, not a convincing or effective argument.

  •  Screw the cowbells (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Militarytracy, arlene, martydd

    We need more CherryTheTart.

    Too many just can't see women as fully human,fully empowered,with autonomy and agency over themselves. Always with these folks,women's rights must be agreed upon,considered,determined,debated,reasoned,tempered, structured,strictured, even "scriptured". Thanks Cherry for not buying into it.

    "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

    by tardis10 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:32:36 AM PDT

Sharoney, dstein, Renee, Alumbrados, Sean Robertson, Chi, Radiowalla, MadRuth, AaronInSanDiego, importer, Dump Terry McAuliffe, Gooserock, GayHillbilly, xynz, LeftHandedMan, lotusmaglite, bookbear, HighSticking, regis, bdizz, JLFinch, opinionated, bronte17, CanadaGoose, annrose, susakinovember, highacidity, PBnJ, mrblifil, someRaven, retLT, sngmama, fumie, Glinda, nupstateny, splashy, high uintas, hopeful, psnyder, Miss Jones, RandRegL, Kentucky DeanDemocrat, MA Liberal, kdrivel, exiledfromTN, Damnit Janet, NYFM, MagentaMN, Diana in NoVa, ScienceMom, AlwaysDemocrat, Sassy, TexMex, musikman, julifolo, historys mysteries, radarlady, gerard w, caul, democracy inaction, Militarytracy, Alice Venturi, juliesie, TigerMom, Brooke In Seattle, chidmf, madmommy, fixxit, eru, Beetwasher, cspivey, skyounkin, Ice Blue, Little Lulu, Jlukes, Pluto, kathny, fhcec, esquimaux, Nance, althea in il, Mr Bojangles, Clytemnestra, Themistoclea, tonyahky, cookseytalbott, arlene, Son of a Cat, jguzman17, twigg, gpoutney, gooderservice, real world chick, CA Nana, doingbusinessas, fiddlingnero, blueoregon, zedaker, Bernie68, Little, NonnyO, Thinking Fella, tegrat, FlamingoGrrl, john07801, pfiore8, Cronesense, SemDem, terryhallinan, karmsy, edsbrooklyn, rantsposition, artisan, crose, Ralphdog, JDWolverton, 123man, coachster, rogerdaddy, gzodik, treesrock, Calamity Jean, hwmnbn, Hanging Up My Tusks, Tam in CA, alnep, mofembot, Parthenia, Mayfly, lissablack, LaFeminista, Fiddlegirl, MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel, prettygirlxoxoxo, Ran3dy, greengemini, Dopeman, Carol in San Antonio, jennylind, CamillesDad1, geebeebee, stevenwag, Dragon5616, Larsstephens, pyegar, FogCityJohn, NJpeach, Susan Grigsby, kjoftherock, SmartAleq, Polly Syllabic, ATFILLINOIS, melpomene1, gulfgal98, ItsSimpleSimon, DeanObama, Otteray Scribe, cocinero, Oh Mary Oh, ZedMont, soaglow, JanG, annieli, implicate order, AdamR510, m00finsan, GammaRae, FarWestGirl, asterkitty, Nicci August, CoExistNow, Puppup, susanala, thomask, muddy boots, KVoimakas, SueM1121, floridablue, durrati, rexymeteorite, sound of progress, randomfacts, stevie avebury, JoeEngineer, blue muon, bakeneko, SteelerGrrl, bluck, googie, Regina in a Sears Kit House, Lucy2009, bearette, Pinto Pony, OldDragon, Voiceless, Siri, LefseBlue, tb92, swampyankee, Trotskyrepublican, This old man, DollyMadison, mapamp, Halandri, reginahny, MartyM, lunachickie, cassandracarolina, Noddy, arizonablue, mumtaznepal, Robynhood too, quillsinister, SwedishJewfish, MishaBrewer, Eric Twocents, Setsuna Mudo, SanFernandoValleyMom, Says Who, merrywidow, weck, Yo Bubba, LaraJones, Smoh, Avilyn, Laura Wnderer, sjburnman, Libral Antibagger

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site