Comments on Conversion Diary: How I became pro-life

Yonmei, Forgive me, but I don't think there's any...

2009-08-25T12:05:54.145-05:00

Yonmei,

Forgive me, but I don't think there's any point in continuing this conversation; you limit your reading of opponents' comments to that which can be "cherry-picked" for easy knee-jerk responses (while ignoring the substance), and you follow it up with a relentless, prepackaged mantra of "forced oppression of women", "hatred of women", blah, blah, blah... despite the large number of women (did you ever check out the Feminists for Life website?) who denounce your ideas as nonsense, and even as diabolical. Apparently, only Yonmei (and those who agree with her) is fit to speak to "what benefits women", in your mind... which is mind-bogglingly arrogant.

Case in point, re: your "cherry-picking" and disregard for the comments of others (save as a pretext for another canned rant):

[Yonmei]
I really hope you don't genuinely believe women cannot truly love a baby they chose to give birth to: after all, that would smear Alpha Wolff's mother-in-law too, who actively chose - as Wolff says, after prayer - to have the baby who became the woman Wolff married.

Apparently this part (see highlighted portion especially) of my original comment wasn't caught by your cherry-picker:

[Paladin]
In fact, it's exactly the reverse: children of parents who've repented of abortion tolerance may well have a chance of being assured of their mother's love; but the child whose mother unapologetically champions abortion as a "right" grows up under the ever-implicit-but-ever-present idea: "You have no intrinsic value of your own; your value comes from my approval. You are allowed to live only because you please me. Had I felt differently on any critical day, you would be dead now."

Since your anger is clouding your reason and thoroughness, let me itemize the salient points so that they're quite clear:

1) Nowhere did I say that women cannot truly love a baby to whom they chose to give birth (my mother, who would never dream of resorting to abortion, chose to give birth to me by conceiving me with the cooperation of my father). I didn't even say that women who considered killing their child by abortion cannot love their child (and I stated explicitly to the contrary that repentant mothers *could*). And I didn't even say that it was impossible for an unrepentant "pro-choice" woman to love her child; I said only (and I stand completely by the statement) that children of such mothers (or fathers) grow up under the idea that they are a "chosen commodity" which could just as easily have been killed by those same parents... which doesn't do much for one's self-security.

2) I don't see where Alpha Wolff described his mother as one who "unapologetically champions abortion as a "right". All who read my sentence with even a modicum of care would be aware that this was a precondition of my statement.

3) You seem oblivious to the fact that one can "choose" to give birth to a child without "optional death" entering the picture at all; do not parents choose to give birth to a child whom they were trying to conceive? Tragedy (such as miscarriage, death of the mother and child, etc.) may strike and take the desired outcome away, but surely you see that non-abortive mothers can also "choose" to give life? This seems rather self-evident, to me.

Enough is enough, Yonmei; discussion can only be held by those who are open to discussion, who are reasonable enough to consider ideas which aren't their own, and who are civil enough to listen to the comments of others with at least some minor attention. You can't do that, apparently (I'll let the reader prove that to him/herself, by skimming your comments and replies in this thread alone)... so I'm afraid I have to call it quits, with you. My time is limited enough as it is, without attempting fruitless discussion with those who choose not to listen.

Paladin, your pro-forced pregnancy rants just make...

2009-08-23T16:11:26.436-05:00

Paladin, your pro-forced pregnancy rants just make me feel sad and tired.

But: My mother is pro-choice, as is my sister. The notion that I, my brother, my sister, my nephew, or any child ever born would feel that we have no intrinsic value of our own because our mothers chose to give birth to us, is so ridiculous in its fanatic, hate-filled absurdity that if I quote it, I suspect I will be accused of inventing it to smear the forced-pregnancy movement.

I really hope you don't genuinely believe women cannot truly love a baby they chose to give birth to: after all, that would smear Alpha Wolff's mother-in-law too, who actively chose - as Wolff says, after prayer - to have the baby who became the woman Wolff married. But what you've claimed is that her act of choice meant she couldn't love the baby; your argument rests on the idea that she could only love her baby if she had been legally and choicelessly forced.

Absurd, isn't it? Do quit this line of argument.

Alpha Wolff, aren't you glad your mother-in-law ha...

2009-08-23T13:30:15.848-05:00

Alpha Wolff, aren't you glad your mother-in-law had the right to choose for herself to have the baby who would later grow up to become your wife?

...or to kill that same baby? Yonmei, I really do wonder if you've lost your sanity, entirely.

That she was allowed to come to her own decision in calmness and prayer?

Not to pry, Yonmei, but: did you ever have an abortion? Because it's overwhelmingly likely that only someone who's never experienced an abortion could ever dream up such unmitigated nonsense as you write, here. "Calmness and prayer?" I know you make a habit of ignoring the links and references people send you, but have you seriously not heard of Project Rachel, Silent No More, and dozens of other ministries (many of which are run by women, if that makes you feel better?) which minister to women broken by their abortions? You have absolutely no idea what you're saying. You might also check out Feminists for Life, (founded, directed and run by women--care to read what they've done in defense of women? Or are you too good for them?) for a tonic against the death-ridden version of "feminism" you've been spouting. Your pseudo-feminist claims of "Yonmei's way, or else woman-oppression" would be laughable, were they not so macabre and blood-soaked... and Patricia Heaton, Rebecca Kiessling, et al., fight your nonsense, day in and day out, with nary a Y-chromosome between them.

How, exactly, DO you explain why legions of women, who have no interest in oppressing themselves or their sisters, would decry your ideas for the murderous nonsense that it is? The idea of "you're a man who wants to oppress women" doesn't seem to get any traction, against them...

Paladin seems to feel that the right thing to do would have been to force your mother-in-law, regardless of whatever fears or doubts she had, to make her choicelessly go through pregnancy and childbirth without being allowed to make a clear decision

...whether or not to kill that child, his future beloved wife. Right.

Do finish your sentences completely, Yonmei; it's dishonest to leave critical parts of your ideas unspoken.

Your wife grew up in the certainty of a mother who loved and wanted her, even before she was born:

Are not your words insanity itself? You're seriously suggesting that the only way to achieve certainty of a mother's love is to give that mother the option of KILLING her child?? From what mad-house did you get this idea?

In fact, it's exactly the reverse: children of parents who've repented of abortion tolerance may well have a chance of being assured of their mother's love; but the child whose mother unapologetically champions abortion as a "right" grows up under the ever-implicit-but-ever-present idea: "You have no intrinsic value of your own; your value comes from my approval. You are allowed to live only because you please me. Had I felt differently on any critical day, you would be dead now."

That's "love" to you, Yonmei? With "love" like that, who needs hatred? Why not offer to machine-gun all children in the foster-care systems and orphanages and hostile homes, while you're at it, and at least be logically consistent? Why are you so unloving and cruel as to restrict your "loving window of choice" to only 9 months? Are the oppressed and desperate mothers of screaming toddlers, disrespectful pre-teens and criminal teenagers not to be allowed to "choose for themselves" whether their children are to be "wanted"?

God have mercy on you, Yonmei; you're talking crazy-talk, here.

Alpha Wolff, aren't you glad your mother-in-law ha...

2009-08-23T04:19:27.483-05:00

Alpha Wolff, aren't you glad your mother-in-law had the right to choose for herself to have the baby who would later grow up to become your wife? That she was allowed to come to her own decision in calmness and prayer?

I am.

Paladin seems to feel that the right thing to do would have been to force your mother-in-law, regardless of whatever fears or doubts she had, to make her choicelessly go through pregnancy and childbirth without being allowed to make a clear decision in her own time that, no matter what, she wanted the child who would later become the woman you love.

Your wife grew up in the certainty of a mother who loved and wanted her, even before she was born: Paladin prefers a system where pregnant women are forced and mistreated, even to their death, and who know that not one of their children was a choice they were able to make.

I'm glad your future wife was born in love: I'm sorry there are still people like Paladin who would rather that she had been born in hate after forced pregnancy.

Yonmei wrote, in reply to Alpha Wolff: Alpha Wolf...

2009-08-22T18:42:01.188-05:00

Yonmei wrote, in reply to Alpha Wolff:

Alpha Wolff, aren't you glad your mother-in-law had the right to choose?

Wow. Just, wow.

If you expose the suppressed minor in your statement, and make your question less disingenuous, any sane person can see the absurdity:

"Alpha Wolff, aren't you glad your mother-in-law had the legal option of killing your wife, even if she didn't choose it?"

This, asked to someone who's obviously rejoicing in the fact that his wife wasn't ripped to pieces in her mother's womb? If you were deliberately trying to prove to me that you were deranged, Yonmei, you could scarcely do a better job than this. At least this puts the lie to your claims to honour logic...

Paladin, I'm sort of sorry I didn't respond, but I went on holiday for a couple of weeks

Perfectly understandable--no harm in that at all.

and your anti-women diatribes praising forced pregnancy just made me feel sad and tired. [remainder of diatribe deleted for space]

I suppose I can empathize, to some extent; I must conclude, like many who already said as much on this site, that you seem utterly incapable of having a rational discussion on this topic--and all my attempts to get you to do anything other than cut and paste one of a handful of pre-packaged variants of "you all hate women and want to exploit them, etc. ad nauseam" seems but a frustrating waste of time.

In the future, I'd appreciate it if you admit--at very least--that your particular abortion-tolerant position is an irrational and hysterical one, and that you give not even the slightest pretense of READING the replies given you--to say nothing of considering them at face value and responding with substance (rather than with puerile, canned, and logically vacuous non-sequiturs).

It's a pity, really: all abortion-tolerance is logically and morally incoherent, but others of that camp have at least engaged opponents with civility and intellectual honestly... both of which seem to be beyond you, when immersed in this topic. Your hatred seems to have blinded you, perhaps permanently, to all but your own myopic, rage-filled world--in which there is "no justice for women unless they have recourse to the killing of their children." And you have the nerve to call me (and others) hateful?

Just, wow.

Feel free to contact me if you ever wish to have a civil and reasonable discussion, Yonmei. Until then, God help you.

Alpha Wolff, aren't you glad your mother-in-law ha...

2009-08-21T03:37:58.784-05:00

Alpha Wolff, aren't you glad your mother-in-law had the right to choose?

Paladin, I'm sort of sorry I didn't respond, but I went on holiday for a couple of weeks and your anti-women diatribes praising forced pregnancy just made me feel sad and tired. I feel that if 70,000 women dying each year don't persuade you that women need access to safe legal abortion as a basic human right, my words never will: if you don't think of women as human beings with a right to decide for themselves when and how many children to have, my words will do nothing to make you see that treating women as slaves or incubators to be used till broken is profoundly wrong.

My mother-in-law was advised to abort my wife beca...

2009-08-20T20:04:14.650-05:00

My mother-in-law was advised to abort my wife because of some medicine she took before she found out she was pregnant. The doctor said the baby would be deformed. My mother-in-law went to the church to pray instead. When my wife was born, she had one ear that was folded over--that was her only deformity. We now have five children.

Yonmei, I have to admit: your last comment sent m...

2009-08-03T14:09:12.995-05:00

Yonmei,

I have to admit: your last comment sent me on the gamut of emotions. At first, I was mad enough to spit (I deleted the first draft of my reply to this)... until I realized that your reply wasn't written to me at all. You certainly quoted my message while writing your reply... and you used the name "Paladin" a few times (at least in previous replies)... but you're obviously not replying to me! You can't be. You seem to have demonized all pro-lifers as "women-oppressing, rape-tolerating, cruel tyrants", cast me in that "role" on your mythical mental stage, and then proceeded to rail against that imaginary Paladin. I really am at something of a loss, here; how do I talk to you, if you're seeing "visions of evil Paladins, dancing in your head"?

If a plea for civility or kindness doesn't work, then at least listen to logic! Take two cases:

Person #1 has a deep-seated desire to see women suffer and to grind their dignity into dirt; he relishes with demonic glee the idea of seeing a woman pregnant against her will, and nothing tickles his fancy more than the idea that there is a very real chance of the pregnancy proving fatal to her (after great agony). This person opposes abortion in order to maximize (or at least to maintain) the suffering of as many women as possible, re: all of the above motives.

Person #2 sees abortion as the murder of an innocent unborn baby, and it horrifies him… while, at the same time, he suffers intense grief while watching the anguish of a woman (especially one who has been brutalized through rape) as she tries to cope with an unexpected and undesired pregnancy. The woman might even be a relative--perhaps even his own wife or daughter. But despite his heartfelt tears in sympathy for the women (whom he perhaps loves dearly), he cannot but oppose the murder of the innocent unborn child--especially since such a murder will only give illusory "relief", and will compound the woman's suffering, over time.

So... two men (#1 and #2) oppose abortion, for diametrically opposed reasons (the first hateful, the second loving). Clear enough?

Now, suppose you meet someone (perhaps he even has a screen name of "Paladin") who opposes abortion. Given only that you know he opposes abortion, and assuming (for the sake of argument) that he's either #1 or #2 (i.e. one of only two extreme choices)... how can you tell which one he is, without further data? You can't, so far as sane reason can tell. “Jumping to a conclusion” is still a fallacy, when last I checked.

You seem to have come to the (bizarre, illogical and prejudiced) view that all abortion opponents are evil by definition, and that any denials by them against your accusations--those of "desire to oppress women", "seeing women as nothing more than incubators", and other such stuff and nonsense--must be lying. This is sheer bias (and perhaps raw arrogance).

Do you not see? You've flatly asserted that you know my mind in this matter (i.e. that my abortion opposition is for nefarious reasons), and you reject all my denials as lies--that "if I'm pro life, I must hate women." Logic itself should allow you to see the holes in such rubbish-ridden statements! Wherever did you get the power to read my mind, pray tell? What power allows you to declare infallibly that my motives are evil, while yours are snow-white? Could you refute me if I said that you were "pro-choice" solely because you hate all men, and that you like nothing better than to see fathers and other sympathetic men weep as women kill their children? That's the sort of "mind-reading" you try to practice, Yonmei... and it's not only stupid, but insulting. Have some sense, will you? You claimed to be in favour of "facts". Well, prove it. Get rid of these puerile accusations, and face the facts... and not simply your biased and hateful interpretation of them! You might even find that there are some "human beings" (rather than inhuman monsters) in the "pro-life" camp...

Slavery is the state of being in which one person ...

2009-08-01T13:57:25.372-05:00

Slavery is the state of being in which one person treats another person as a "thing to be owned/used" rather than a person to be loved; I have never, nor will I ever, advocate slavery for women

You have repeatedly advocated, in this thread, that a woman ought to be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will: even a woman who has been raped. Forced pregnancy, and breeding by rape, is precisely how owners treat property: you advocate treating pregnant women like slaves. Ugly.

Never would I dream of treating a woman, man or any human person as an "animal" (in the sense of "dumb animal, sub-human, worthy of being the property of another person",

You have repeatedly advocated, in this thread, that a woman may not be permitted to decide for herself whether or not to bear a child: she must be forced to breed, even if she has been raped. This is precisely how owners treat property: you advocate treating pregnant women like animals. Ugly.

You seem to use the word "incubator" (which is true, in a grossly simplistic sense) to imply "and nothing more than that"--which, again, is nonsense.

Not at all. You have repeatedly advocated, in this thread, that women's uteruses are to be made use of without their consent and regardless of what damage pregnancy may do to their health, their future capacity to bear children, or their life. A responsible owner would not treat even a slave or an animal like this: this is reducing women to the status of incubators, used till they're broken. Ugly.

Did you not read my comments about condemning all "impregnation by force"?

I read your comments gloating over how once a rapist's sperm meets egg, the woman ought to be forced to continue the pregnancy and give birth. That's hardly "condemnation", and indeed, makes clear (as above) that you regard women to be treated as slaves or animals - to be bred by force.

If ever there is harm done during the procreation of children, I will be one of the first to grieve the fact.

You mean one of the last. Given that in order to grieve harm and death, you would first have to acknowledge that these slaves, animals, incubators, are suffering harm. If you are still at the stage of regarding women as creatures below human consideration, where harm need not even be regarded or grieved for, you fcan hardly be arrogant enough to claim you'll ever be among the first.(Well, obviously, you can. But it's a bit like someone showing up at the after-funeral meal, and moving among the shattered mourners claiming to be "one of the first".) Ugly.

I assure you: if there is a movement which claims to be "pro-life", but which truly (in reality, and not simply in hyperbole) does advocate the dehumanization of women, the murder of doctors, and attacks on other human persons, I would condemn it side-by-side with you.

And yet, you don't even condemn your own dehumanisation of women.

You don't even acknowledge the pro-life murders - not mere advocacy, but actual murders - over the past 20 years.

You're not "side by side" with me. You're away down in a moral chasm of denial and cruelty, so mired in inhumanity you cannot even smell your own sins - and yet you dare presume to claim that you fear for my soul!

Yonmei wrote: Cruelty and dehumanization such as ...

2009-07-30T10:37:24.260-05:00

Yonmei wrote:

Cruelty and dehumanization such as you advocate are, to me, the ugliest of sins - and I would fear for the best part of me, for whatever integrity and kindess I possess, if I were ever brought low enough not to opppose such ugliness whenever I see it.

I hope you can see, now, that I advocate neither cruelty nor dehumanization... and that it is precisely cruelty and dehumanization which horrifies me (and those of like mind) within abortion!

To me, your advocacy of forcing women through pregnancy and childbirth, no matter what high-sounding excuses you make to yourself, is as ugly as slavery and rape. There is no excuse for it.

I appreciate your sincere feelings, in that matter. I only offer the idea that you are grievously misled, and that you've accepted "high-sounding excuses" as justifications for the wholesale murder of over 40 *million* children in our country alone! Perhaps Stalin was right: "One death is a tragedy; one million deaths is a statistic."

I support a woman's right to safe, legal access to abortion, because I believe: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

As an aside: could you tell me the source of that quote?

And, so we include sisters in "brotherhood", I would never turn away from that to the horrors of the "pro-life" movement.

You are quite right to include sisters (and all humanity) in "brotherhood". But the "horrors of the pro-life movement" are fictions which you've (perhaps innocently) swallowed; I can't speak for every last person who claims to be pro-life (and yes, there are murderers and lunatics who [wrongly] take the "pro-life" label upon themselves--there's no "central office" which scrutinizes potential candidates for that label and gives licenses for the label to prevent abuses, after all!), but I can speak for myself, and (in this limited instance) for the Catholic Church: a horror of abortion, and a desire to see it eradicated, has nothing whatever to do with any desire to oppress, dehumanize, or torment anyone; it's quite possible to grieve abortion while still loving those who've been duped into embracing it. Read any page of the Catechism, and you'll see that I'm right on this point.

Okay... dead computer or not, here we go... Yonme...

2009-07-30T10:35:35.115-05:00

Okay... dead computer or not, here we go...

Yonmei wrote:

I am an atheist, and normally I take "concern for my immortal soul" as a kindness - an expression of warmth, despite the fact that I don't believe in either an immortal God or immortal souls.

Well... okay, fair enough. I think you're provably mistaken about both God and immortal souls, mind you... but I certainly *did* mean it as a kindness, in addition to it being true.

But in this instance, you see, you are advocating support for a mass movement to treat women as slaves, animals, or incubators - to regard human beings as creatures to be bred by force, or machines that can be used to produce babies without regard for any harm done.

See, here's where you lose me: where on earth do you get any of this? Let me be quite clear:

1) Slavery is the state of being in which one person treats another person as a "thing to be owned/used" rather than a person to be loved; I have never, nor will I ever, advocate slavery for women--or for men. I really do think you're using dramatic hyperbole, here.

2) Never would I dream of treating a woman, man or any human person as an "animal" (in the sense of "dumb animal, sub-human, worthy of being the property of another person", and I challenge you to find any comment of mine to the contrary. This is a bit ironic, since many abortion-tolerant people view man as "simply another animal in the evolutionary process", partially in order to excuse sexual license and perversions as "just another natural manifestation of the animal sexual urge". Now *that's* dehumanizing, I think.

3) You seem to use the word "incubator" (which is true, in a grossly simplistic sense) to imply "and nothing more than that"--which, again, is nonsense. One might as well dismiss me as "merely a walking sperm bank", and nothing more--which would be equally wrong.

4) Did you not read my comments about condemning all "impregnation by force"? Unless you're accusing me of dishonesty, I don't see why you'd repeat a charge that I already refuted...

5) If ever there is harm done during the procreation of children, I will be one of the first to grieve the fact. But I ask only that you consider the directly willed harm done to an innocent child in the womb; you seem positively insensible to that, apparently because you inexplicably deny personhood to any child before birth.

This "pro-life" movement that advocates dehumanising women, that murders doctors, attacks clinics and health care - I would no more support it, ever, than I would support a pro-slavery movement, or a pro-death penalty movement, or a pro-war movement.

I assure you: if there is a movement which claims to be "pro-life", but which truly (in reality, and not simply in hyperbole) does advocate the dehumanization of women, the murder of doctors, and attacks on other human persons, I would condemn it side-by-side with you. I will say, however, that my pro-life beliefs (and those of the Catholic Church, and those of the overwhelmingly vast majority of pro-life people in the United States) are a million miles from any of those horrors. Can you truly not imagine even the remotest possibility that we regard the unborn child as a child, and that (despite the anguish in any of the attendant circumstances) our main motive is to prevent that child from being murdered (and in barbarous ways)? Is that truly so hard to imagine?

Treating other human beings as lesser creatures, to be used and destroyed, is to me a sin.

It is to me, as well... and to the Catholic Church, to Whom I belong. But do you not see the deep irony, here? The abortion-tolerant mentality is treating unborn children--human beings--as lesser creatures (some sort of "sub-human", and using what you hope to be the impersonal word "fetus"), to be used (for stem-cell research, etc.) and destroyed. Is this truly so hard for you to see?

More in part II...

(grumble) Sorry, Yonmei... I'm not ignoring you...

2009-07-29T10:00:06.866-05:00

(*grumble*)

Sorry, Yonmei... I'm not ignoring you. Computer freezes every [x] minutes, where 0 < x < 1000! I'm about ready to put a bullet in its head and start over...

I'll try to get back to your message soon; I'm limping along with a substitute computer, at present...

I'm just about to go out, Paladin, so I don't have...

2009-07-28T12:03:11.998-05:00

I'm just about to go out, Paladin, so I don't have time to respond to you point by point, and excuse me if I've omitted to respond to anything you consider to be important:

But I seriously and sincerely believe that you are grievously in error, and I don't find that state of affairs to be good--not only because it leads you to empower and enable the culture of death in our nation/world (and enable the toleration of mass murder on a mind-boggling scale), but because it threatens your own immortal soul... and I really don't want to see you lost.

I am an atheist, and normally I take "concern for my immortal soul" as a kindness - an expression of warmth, despite the fact that I don't believe in either an immortal God or immortal souls.

But in this instance, you see, you are advocating support for a mass movement to treat women as slaves, animals, or incubators - to regard human beings as creatures to be bred by force, or machines that can be used to produce babies without regard for any harm done. This "pro-life" movement that advocates dehumanising women, that murders doctors, attacks clinics and health care - I would no more support it, ever, than I would support a pro-slavery movement, or a pro-death penalty movement, or a pro-war movement.

Treating other human beings as lesser creatures, to be used and destroyed, is to me a sin. Cruelty and dehumanization such as you advocate are, to me, the ugliest of sins - and I would fear for the best part of me, for whatever integrity and kindess I possess, if I were ever brought low enough not to opppose such ugliness whenever I see it.

To me, your advocacy of forcing women through pregnancy and childbirth, no matter what high-sounding excuses you make to yourself, is as ugly as slavery and rape. There is no excuse for it.

I support a woman's right to safe, legal access to abortion, because I believe: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." And, so we include sisters in "brotherhood", I would never turn away from that to the horrors of the "pro-life" movement.

Yonmei wrote: The change from fetus to baby is an...

2009-07-28T10:12:18.876-05:00

Yonmei wrote:

The change from fetus to baby is an enormous one - a biological miracle ignored by pro-lifers in favor of trying to claim that a fetus is a baby, or a child,

Forgive me, but this makes no sense at all! The difference between "fetus" and "baby" is a philosophical and semantic one, not a biological one (I think you mean "infant", anyway, if you're trying to refer to biological textbooks and terms). To Barack Obama (for example), a baby born during a failed abortion attempt is still a "fetus", unworthy of life and protection; to me, the one-celled zygote is a baby (as well as a fetus--a fetus is simply a human person in a particular stage of development... like blastocyst, embryo, adolescence, mid-life crisis, etc.)--admittedly in the earliest of stages of development--worthy of all human protections. Biology doesn't enter relevantly into the issue, save as an excuse on which to hang one's opinions.

The best way to protect and safeguard fetuses is not to start wars

I agree wholeheartedly, there... if you're speaking of a non-spiritual (i.e. with spiritual weapons, such as prayer, fasting and almsgiving) war.

or attack clinics

Depending on your definition of "attack", I can agree with that.

or murder doctors

I agree completely. One can never choose to do evil [such as murder], even for a good end, and those who murder abortionists have betrayed the very principles which separate them from those abortionists.

or harass and bully and jail women:

Harassment (in the non-idiomatic sense of the word) and bullying are both sins against justice and charity, and they are certainly to be condemned and avoided. Jailing should be reserved only for criminals, at very least--and there are more than enough women in the world who have allowed their children to be shredded to death in the womb out of fear, ignorance, or a conscience malformed by the culture and people around them, that jail might not be an appropriate response for them (in particular). The abortionists, however (women or men), are a very different matter.

it's to provide the best healthcare and support possible to pregnant women.

Yes... and their unborn children (which would utterly preclude any attempts to kill them). To suggest that "protecting and safeguarding fetuses" can be served by "healthcare" which involves killing those selfsame feti/a (Latin: little boys and girls) would be bizarre.

This pro-lifers have always proved notably unwilling to do or to support.

With all due respect: on this particular point, you don't know what you're talking about. I know of at least 5 crisis pregnancy centers (which provide food, clothing, extended shelter, job training, and mentor families to love and advise the woman and child(ren)) within easy driving distance of our house. We donate to one regularly, in fact. I find it ironic that those in the abortion-tolerant movement would like nothing better than to eradicate these same places of support, while (out of the other side of their mouths) decrying the "lack of support" from the "pro-life community".

Countries in which women have access to safe legal abortion

Legal, perhaps. Safe, no.

are invariably countries with lower maternal mortality/morbidity rates than countries without such access:

You might look up the fallacy, "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", when you get the chance. Is it not also the case that such countries (on the average) have far more advanced and readily-available medical systems in general? (How many Mayo clinics do you know, in sub-Saharan Africa?)

Whoops! I didn't address your last post, Yonmei; ...

2009-07-28T10:00:45.401-05:00

Whoops! I didn't address your last post, Yonmei; apologies... though I think I need to address your last point first:

Yes, I am emotional about this: I care about human life. That you regard this as folly to be mocked and claim that my regard for human life is "selfishness" or "opaque glasses" is a shame to you.

I really think you've mistaken me, here. In no way was I trying to mock you (and certainly not because of your emotion--how could I, since I have strong emotions on this topic, myself?) or doubt your sincerity. But I seriously and sincerely believe that you are grievously in error, and I don't find that state of affairs to be good--not only because it leads you to empower and enable the culture of death in our nation/world (and enable the toleration of mass murder on a mind-boggling scale), but because it threatens your own immortal soul... and I really don't want to see you lost. Call me a liar or a fool if you will, but there's my truthful position. Yes, I *can*, under select circumstances (not usually involving abortion debates), enjoy good-natured (or at least civil) debate, but I'm not out to "score points" off of you; I'm here to dismantle the errors that lead otherwise good people who care deeply about what they believe to be right (such as you) to embrace horrific evils such as abortion. Call me sentimental, but I have a hard time watching babies be ripped to pieces, burned, etc., by the millions... and I have a similarly hard time watching hearts harden to the point where people ignore, tolerate, enable, or even "celebrate" that crime!

A fetus is biologically distinct from a baby in a number of important ways, even if we ignore the stages of development and look only at a fetus in late pregnancy. A fetus cannot breathe - nor eat: in effect, a fetus is an amphibian, with depressed oxygen levels in the brain such that a fetus is - as far as we now understand brain development - never conscious until the first breath.

There are several serious problems with this:

1) The baby certainly "breathes" liquid, in the sense that it exercises its lungs while aspirating amniotic fluid, though there's no significant exchange of oxygen thereby (unlike amphibians)... so to call him/her "amphibian" seems to serve no purpose other than rhetoric (and the possible dehumanization of the fetus, in the eyes of onlookers).

2) The baby can certainly "eat", though not by chewing and swallowing. I've been in the hospital with severe illnesses which required me to "eat" through an IV for days on end; would you say that I was (during those days) "biologically distinct" enough to kill with impunity? The baby in the womb is in the same position.

3) As for your comments about "depressed oxygen levels" (compared to whom, and under what circumstances? Could someone overcome by smoke inhalation be rightfully killed, in your opinion?) and "no consciousness", I can only say that you're spouting your personal opinion, bereft of scientific support. How can someone who's "not conscious until birth" dream, remember, experience pain, and the like? But even if the child were unconscious until birth, I do wonder at your opinion that this makes them worthy of being killed with impunity; you and I are in a similar situation when we sleep, are we not?

If someone could force a baby back in the uterus, the baby would die: nothing can make a newborn baby into an amphibian capable of living in liquid again.

Nothing can make a newborn baby human into an amphibian at all, since it was never one in the first place. But you're making a great deal out of very little; I, for example, would no longer be capable of surviving on human breast milk, since I've developed a severe dairy allergy in the meantime. To borrow your turn of phrase: "Nothing can make me into a milk-drinker capable of surviving on breast milk again"; that which could make a typical [born] baby thrive for up to 2 years would kill me. So... am I worthy of being killed with impunity, because of that?

To be concluded...

[Paladin] Second: there is no such thing as a "saf...

2009-07-27T16:25:37.219-05:00

[Paladin]
Second: there is no such thing as a "safe" abortion--the child dies (in barbaric manners which you might find rather hard to watch--manners which many abortion-tolerant people would decry with horrified outrage if they were done even to a cat or dog), and the woman is devastated (if she survives at all).

[Yonmei]
I think you're getting a bit confused here, between late abortions - which are carried out as a medical emergency [ALL of them are emergencies?], often of a wanted pregnancy and sometimes because a child has been raped and did not know she was pregnant [so you would disapprove of this if it were *not* a child-rape? Else, why mention this?] - and the vast majority of early abortions, which carry virtually no risk at all.

"Confused?" The "dismemberment" abortions are done mostly in the 1st trimester, at 5-12 weeks (though they're certainly done later than that), with a vacuum hose, other dismemberments are done with a razor-sharp curettage (6-14 weeks), and most of the other dismemberments are done by tearing one limb at a time, with forceps (13-24 weeks: 2nd trimester); would you call all of these "late-term"?

I am happy to defend either early or late:

Even if it were not a so-called "hard case" (e.g. rape, physical danger)? And I'm afraid you're mistaken about the "virtually no risk" idea; the prevalence of uterine perforations was what led to the barbaric practice of "partial-birth abortion"--on the pretext that it was far safer to kill the child by manipulations *outside* the womb, rather than inside it. I do not mention this for dramatic effect, here; I mention it only to refute the false claim that early-term abortions are somehow "virtually risk-free".

I do not consider it acceptable to force a woman through pregnancy and childbirth against her will,

Nor do I; those who forcibly impregnate women should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I merely ask that one heinous crime not be followed by another.

and neither do I consider it acceptable to force a woman to die in pregnancy or childbirth rather than terminate,

Terminate *what*, may I ask?

though the pro-lifers who attacked and finally murdered Doctor George Tiller were prepared to kill in defense of the principle that women ought to have no choice but to die in pregnancy.

Mm-hmm. [sarcasm] And abortion-tolerant people who leave rape and death threats for a 12-year-old girl who gave a pro-life speech, for a nurse who blew the whistle on "4th trimester abortions", and for a priest who dedicates his life to helping the very women you claim are abandoned by him, and the like? Are you, like they, prepared to kill in defense of the principle that the murder of a child by its mother is sacrosanct?[/sarcasm]

Again: do you really want to have duelling straw men? Or can we stick to reality?

Look: this seems to be a very emotionally charged issue for you, and you're obviously deeply ignorant and afraid, and I appreciate that. I don't, to be frank, expect to get past your emotional ignorance, especially not after the nasty remarks in the antepenultimate paragraph of your comment, which - forgive me - betray your arrogance and mean-mindedness in a way that undoes all your previous attempts to sound as if you were making a logical case.[...]

:) Um... I appreciate drama as much as the next fellow (and I'm flattered by your imitation of my style and turns of phrase--imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, they say), but I think you have a perfectly workable style of your own; you needn't parrot mine, in order to be effective.

More later.

Yech. Computers are not my friends today. I'll l...

2009-07-27T15:55:39.208-05:00

Yech. Computers are not my friends today. I'll leave the ill computer for the moment...

Yonmei wrote, in reply to my comment:

[Paladin]
First: no one, save perhaps for a rapist (who beats the astronomical odds and impregnates his victim), forces anyone to carry a child against her will

[Yonmei]
Oh come now. If a woman is pregnant and wants an abortion, then if the state - or the pro-life terrorists such as those who murder doctors and attack clinics - succeed in preventing her from terminating her pregnancy, then plainly, they have succeeded in forcing through pregnancy and childbirth against her will.

You missed my point... and this may be a mere trifle of semantics, anyway, but: it was the rapist who first violated the woman, and who committed the added violation of imposing a pregnancy on the woman against her will. No sane person will deny the gravity of such a crime, and no one will deny that carrying that child to term will involve burdens and some risks (which should, mind you, be presented without dramatic embellishment--especially if you're as fond of "fact" as you say you are). But it's macabre to suggest that the murder of the undeniably innocent child is an acceptable way of trying to "remedy" the situation (and such a "remedy" would be illusory, anyway--as those who suffer the horrors of such acts of [abortion] violence can attest; a simple Google search for "Silent No More", "Project Rachel", etc., will give you evidence of that).

Do you truly not see how wildly disproportionate your ideas are? You seem to have recognized (somewhat) that an abortion out of mere convenience (e.g. not wanting a pregnancy to spoil how one looks in a swimsuit or dress, gender-selection abortion, etc., not wanting to put off the purchase of that new boat, etc.) wouldn't have much sympathy in the debate arena... so you seem to be trying to frighten your opponents with the idea that "pregnancy = significant chance of severe injury or death". I'm afraid you're being rather disingenuous and misleading, at best; your advocacy of lethal force against innocent human beings would only be appropriate against a proportionally grave threat--not a remote and unlikely one... even if the ends justified such evil means (and they do not).

The goal of the pro-life movement is to force the use of women's bodies as choiceless incubators: forced pregnancy.

(*wry look*) Mm-hmm. And the goal of the "pro-choice" movement is to slaughter innocent boys and girls by the millions--by dismemberment, burning with saline, brain-vacuuming, and other hideous forms of torture--and to promote promiscuous sex at all possible ages.

Are you really going to stoop to shooting at straw men, or can we stick to the "facts"?

To be continued...

Yonmei wrote, in reply to my comment: [Paladin] C...

2009-07-27T15:30:58.372-05:00

Yonmei wrote, in reply to my comment:

[Paladin]
Certainly... and also whether she is born, or not. It's not very supportive of women's rights to kill young women in the womb, after all.

[Yonmei]
What, you think it makes an ethical difference whether the fetus is male or female?

(??) No. Where on earth do you get that? Nowhere did I imply that it was any more acceptable to kill a small boy ("fetus") than it would be to kill a small girl ("feta").

I disagree.

I should hope so! No... my point was to show the incongruity and inconsistency between casting who cast abortion as a "women's rights" issue (and that view is hardly uncommon among abortion-tolerant people) and the practice of killing young women in the womb, in staggering numbers, by methods too horrifying to be allowed on prime-time television. If you're not taking a "women's rights" approach, then fair enough, and I stand corrected... but the tenor of your comments strongly implied it.

The ethics of abortion are the same, regardless of what biological sex the fetus is:

Absolutely.

a human being has an intrinsic right to life, and therefore, the right not to be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will.

If you formulated those statements just a bit differently (deleting the "therefore", which simply makes no sense where it is), and qualify the statements a bit, I could agree wholeheartedly:

1) A human being has an intrinsic right to life.
2) A woman has the right not to be forced through a pregnancy and childbirth against her will.

Both of those statements are correct, so far as they go--a person has a right not to be killed, and a woman has a right not to be impregnated against her will. Any violation of these rights is rightly called a crime, and it should be punished accordingly. But you wrongly assume that these rights are absolute and unlimited, and that any means are acceptable in order to attempt to "undo" the original harm--and that simply isn't true. I have an intrinsic right to life, but that does not justify killing half of the people in town, in the middle of a drought or famine, on the pretext that I'm preventing a personal food and water shortage (which could threaten my life). I have the right not to be forced to hear rap music, but that does not justify me stealing/breaking the stereo of the man below me who plays it loudly (to say nothing of killing him).

The "rights" you mention are real, but they have real limits... and you don't seem to understand or accept that fact.

How is it illogical to argue that a human being's intrinsic right to life means that no other human being has the right to force the use of her body - a use that may kill her and may permanently damage her health - against her will?

That is not illogical in the least (and I agree with your main point wholeheartedly--though your exaggerations of the threats involved in child-bearing approach the level of hysteria). What is illogical, however, is the further assertion/implication that one may put an innocent child to death because of a remote fear of harm due to pregnancy complications. Even good ends never justify evil means--or do you disagree with that?

The argument that women's bodies may be used against a woman's will has no part of any argument that women have an intrinsic right to life. That is deeply illogical.

(??) I agree... so that makes me doubly puzzled why you would use a "potentially preserve life by killing an unborn child" argument in the first place; there is no proportion between the two ideas at all!

More in a bit... crashed computer needs help!

Would you be willing to explain your reasoning for...

2009-07-27T01:51:49.118-05:00

Would you be willing to explain your reasoning for that statement--especially the phrase "biologically distinct"?

Certainly. As I note above, I'm always ready to clarify facts. A fetus is biologically distinct from a baby in a number of important ways, even if we ignore the stages of development and look only at a fetus in late pregnancy. A fetus cannot breathe - nor eat: in effect, a fetus is an amphibian, with depressed oxygen levels in the brain such that a fetus is - as far as we now understand brain development - never conscious until the first breath. If someone could force a baby back in the uterus, the baby would die: nothing can make a newborn baby into an amphibian capable of living in liquid again.

The change from fetus to baby is an enormous one - a biological miracle ignored by pro-lifers in favor of trying to claim that a fetus is a baby, or a child, or - as you do rather randomly at the start of your comment - a woman.

The best way to protect and safeguard fetuses is not to start wars or attack clinics or murder doctors or harass and bully and jail women: it's to provide the best healthcare and support possible to pregnant women. This pro-lifers have always proved notably unwilling to do or to support.

Countries in which women have access to safe legal abortion are invariably countries with lower maternal mortality/morbidity rates than countries without such access: not only because it is much safer for women if doctors can honestly tell them that a pregnancy puts them at risk and let them decide; but also because such countries regard women as humans who are entitled to good healthcare, rather than as choiceless incubators who may be forced without consideration of their health or their lives.

Yes, I am emotional about this: I care about human life. That you regard this as folly to be mocked and claim that my regard for human life is "selfishness" or "opaque glasses" is a shame to you.

Certainly... and also whether she is born, or not....

2009-07-27T01:51:33.263-05:00

Certainly... and also whether she is born, or not. It's not very supportive of women's rights to kill young women in the womb, after all.

What, you think it makes an ethical difference whether the fetus is male or female? I disagree.

The ethics of abortion are the same, regardless of what biological sex the fetus is: a human being has an intrinsic right to life, and therefore, the right not to be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will.

Oh, come now: that's patently illogical, and it doesn't follow at all.

How is it illogical to argue that a human being's intrinsic right to life means that no other human being has the right to force the use of her body - a use that may kill her and may permanently damage her health - against her will? The argument that women's bodies may be used against a woman's will has no part of any argument that women have an intrinsic right to life. That is deeply illogical.

First: no one, save perhaps for a rapist (who beats the astronomical odds and impregnates his victim), forces anyone to carry a child against her will

Oh come now. If a woman is pregnant and wants an abortion, then if the state - or the pro-life terrorists such as those who murder doctors and attack clinics - succeed in preventing her from terminating her pregnancy, then plainly, they have succeeded in forcing through pregnancy and childbirth against her will. The goal of the pro-life movement is to force the use of women's bodies as choiceless incubators: forced pregnancy.

Second: there is no such thing as a "safe" abortion--the child dies (in barbaric manners which you might find rather hard to watch--manners which many abortion-tolerant people would decry with horrified outrage if they were done even to a cat or dog), and the woman is devastated (if she survives at all).

I think you're getting a bit confused here, between late abortions - which are carried out as a medical emergency, often of a wanted pregnancy and sometimes because a child has been raped and did not know she was pregnant - and the vast majority of early abortions, which carry virtually no risk at all. I am happy to defend either early or late: I do not consider it acceptable to force a woman through pregnancy and childbirth against her will, and neither do I consider it acceptable to force a woman to die in pregnancy or childbirth rather than terminate, though the pro-lifers who attacked and finally murdered Doctor George Tiller were prepared to kill in defense of the principle that women ought to have no choice but to die in pregnancy.

Look: this seems to be a very emotionally charged issue for you, and you're obviously deeply ignorant and afraid, and I appreciate that. I don't, to be frank, expect to get past your emotional ignorance, especially not after the nasty remarks in the antepenultimate paragraph of your comment, which - forgive me - betray your arrogance and mean-mindedness in a way that undoes all your previous attempts to sound as if you were making a logical case.

But I think it worthwhile to point out the truth, even to someone so lost in darkness they cannot comprehend it, in the hope that someday, you may be redeemed by facts.

Yonmei wrote, in reply to my comment: [Paladin] t...

2009-07-26T18:33:34.017-05:00

Yonmei wrote, in reply to my comment:

[Paladin]
that right [to life] is intrinsic to all with a human nature--no matter how old or young, healthy or ailing.

[Yonmei]
Fine: so presuming that you consider women to be human, you agree that a woman has an intrinsic right to life - no matter whether she is pregnant or not.

Certainly... and also whether she is born, or not. It's not very supportive of women's rights to kill young women in the womb, after all. (Some abortion-tolerant people *do* speak, sometimes, as if all the unborn children in the world were male, and that it was a women's rights issue to eradicate them; I don't understand it at all.)

Which means that a pregnant woman has an intrinsic right to decide to terminate her pregnancy: since pregnancy and childbirth can be lethal.

Oh, come now: that's patently illogical, and it doesn't follow at all. There's a nonzero percentage chance that some of my students who've been disciplined by me might ambush me in the street and kill me--and 've had a few students who were so mentally disturbed that they (if they ever encountered me again while they were in a fit) might kill me without knowing what they were doing--but I don't have the right to execute them preemptively, on that basis, do I?

(I do admit to being surprised: many abortion-tolerant people abhorred President Bush's so-called "pre-emptive war" against Iraq, et al.; but you seem to be arguing in favour of pre-emptive executions of those [unborn children] who are undeniably innocent of all wrongdoing!)

To force a woman through pregnancy and childbirth against her will - to deny her access as of right to safe legal abortion - is to deny her intrinsic right to life.

First: no one, save perhaps for a rapist (who beats the astronomical odds and impregnates his victim), forces anyone to carry a child against her will; I (and those of like mind) only insist that she not resort to murder in order to *stop* carrying that child. Second: there is no such thing as a "safe" abortion--the child dies (in barbaric manners which you might find rather hard to watch--manners which many abortion-tolerant people would decry with horrified outrage if they were done even to a cat or dog), and the woman is devastated (if she survives at all). Third: you're using a grandiose "slippery slope" to justify wildly disproportionate means to achieve your end; and that cannot be.

Consider this reasonably, for a moment: do I (or anyone else) have the right to assassinate all HIV-positive people, on the pretext that they present a very real (though remote) danger of contagion to me and my loved ones? Should all violent criminals be executed at once, using re-usable lethal weapons (and without benefit of a trial), on the pretext that no one should be forced to carry the financial burden of their support while they're in prison (perhaps for far longer than 9 months)? Would I be justified in killing any violent offender who was released into my area?

Look: this seems to be a very emotionally charged issue for you, despite your veneer of logic (which--forgive me--is mostly sophistry), and I appreciate that. But I'm trying to get even a crack in your opaque glasses, so that even a sliver of light can get in. Your position, friend, is one of utter selfishness, taken to the point of death; you may have begun your position with every good intention... but don't you see how far, and how darkly, it has misled you?

You appear in the rest of your post to be arguing as if a fetus was a baby. As a fetus is not a baby - a fetus and a baby are quite biologically distinct forms of humanity - the rest of your arguments fall to the ground.

Would you be willing to explain your reasoning for that statement--especially the phrase "biologically distinct"? You and I are biologically distinct (in a greater way than are mother and child--so far as I know, we aren't even related!), but I don't think that grants either of us the right to kill the other, does it?

that right is intrinsic to all with a human nature...

2009-07-25T17:27:09.414-05:00

that right is intrinsic to all with a human nature--no matter how old or young, healthy or ailing.

Fine: so presuming that you consider women to be human, you agree that a woman has an intrinsic right to life - no matter whether she is pregnant or not.

Which means that a pregnant woman has an intrinsic right to decide to terminate her pregnancy: since pregnancy and childbirth can be lethal. To force a woman through pregnancy and childbirth against her will - to deny her access as of right to safe legal abortion - is to deny her intrinsic right to life.

Second: do you not realize that your argument defends, a la Peter Singer, all forms of infanticide? Did you really mean to do that?

You appear in the rest of your post to be arguing as if a fetus was a baby. As a fetus is not a baby - a fetus and a baby are quite biologically distinct forms of humanity - the rest of your arguments fall to the ground.

(cont'd, for Yonmei:) Question #1: would it be m...

2009-07-25T12:25:59.059-05:00

(cont'd, for Yonmei:)

Question #1: would it be morally justifiable for you to expel the baby from the house, knowing that the baby will surely die from exposure in short order, on the pretext that the baby is an unwelcome intruder who is intimately connected to the main criminal who caused your pain, and whose very presence is a source of traumatically painful memories?

Question #2: would it be morally justifiable for you to take the baby outside and kill it directly (e.g. beat it to death with a shovel, shoot it, drown it, etc.), on the pretext that you wish rid of a baby whose presence was forced on you (and whose very presence is agonizing to your family), but you wish to spare the baby the pain of dying by exposure?

Question #3: would it be morally permissible to keep the baby in the house (so as to prevent death by exposure) but to withhold all food (causing the baby to starve to death, eventually), on the pretext that you are under no obligation to supply the material needs of a baby that was forced on you without your consent, and whose very presence is psychological agony?

If any of the answers to the above questions are "no", then one must re-examine one's basis for thinking that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape, etc.

=====
As I say: this does not pretend to be a rigorous argument; it is admittedly an appeal to the gallery, whose only real purpose is to highlight (by comparison) the specious "gallery-appeal" nature of Professor Thompson's argument (and similar arguments which seek to evoke "sympathy by appeal to emotion"). In short: if you want to hold to the "I won't use my body as life support for any baby I choose not to have!" position, at least admit that it's an emotion-based and irrational position!

One note on Prof. Thompson's argument: it rests entirely on a non-Theistic, ego-centric (in the Cartesian sense) understanding of the human person. The argument assumes, as an unspoken premise, that one is assumed to have absolute sovereignty over one's body, and that anything affecting one's body must necessarily meet with one's free approval in order to be allowed to continue. (As a personal opinion: this argument style seems to give an unspoken approval of the "retributive" idea that, given a sufficient outrage of justice, any action may be taken as a remedy--"an eye for an eye", if you will.) I'd invite you to consider the idea that this is simply not true.

Sorry for being such a "Johnny-come-lately"; I've ...

2009-07-25T12:24:25.276-05:00

Sorry for being such a "Johnny-come-lately"; I've no idea if the conversation is still going on, but just in case...

Yonmei wrote:

You can only, in all humanity, give a fetus the same rights as you would any other human being - which means they are no more entitled to make use of another human's body against her will than any other human would be.

First: I think you're making a mistake in saying that we "give" a fetus (Latin for "little boy") such inalienable rights as life; that right is intrinsic to all with a human nature--no matter how old or young, healthy or ailing.

Second: do you not realize that your argument defends, a la Peter Singer, all forms of infanticide? Did you really mean to do that?

Abortion thus remains absolutely the decision of the pregnant woman, not the state.

That's not to the point. I assert to you that abortion, no matter whose decision it is, is a MORALLY EVIL choice.

You seem to be relying on a Judith Jarvis Thompson type of argument, with your appeals to "giving permission to use [x]'s body for life-support"--as if pregnancy were some sort of artificial/technological contrivance worthy of Bela Lugosi, rather than a natural aspect of human nature(!). You don't seem to understand that such an argument is blatantly illogical, and it's a raw appeal to the gallery (i.e. whipping up a desired emotional response that trumps all sane reason). To illustrate, try this on for side (sorry about the length, Jen!):

=====
Suppose you are a pioneer, living with your family in the early to middle 1800's in the northern parts of Montana; suppose visitors are few, law enforcement consists of your skills at diplomacy and/or accuracy with your gun, and "social programs" are nonexistent. It is now early September, and the temperature is well below freezing--and it can be expected to stay below freezing until middle to late April (roughly 9 months).

Now, suppose that a gang of outlaws, riding swift horses, invades your property, breaks into your house, and proceeds to steal, destroy, terrorize, and physically injure every member of your family (including sexual assault on every female member of the family); in addition, the head outlaw remarks on your spouse's "ugliness", takes a pot of boiling water, and pours it over your spouse's face, yelling, "this'll improve things, won't it?" Your spouse's face, aside from the agony, will never be anything other than horribly disfigured from this time on.

As the head outlaw prepares to leave, he laughs and yells, "Oh, yeah... I got a present fer ya!", and proceeds to take a live baby out of one of the saddlebags of the horse. "This is a kid I sired by my woman back home; no way I'm gonna be tied down with a kid, so here you go; have fun!" And, laughing uproariously, he and his henchmen ride away far too quickly for any pursuit.

It goes without saying that the outlaw "visit" was a trauma that has yielded, and will continue to yield, horrible (and probably permanent) damage to your family, emotionally as well as physically. It may be taken as given that even the mere sight of the baby will surely trigger horrible anguish and emotional pain in your entire family--but most especially in your spouse, whose dignity, sexual integrity, and face are ravaged. It may also be taken as given that you will have at least a 7- to 8-month wait until any visitors could possibly take the child to some Church, orphanage, etc.; it is certain that maintenance of the baby will cost you a great deal in time, effort, food, and other resources--in addition to the outrage that comes with the fact that the obligation was not of your choosing, and which was forced on you unjustly, with great pain.

(continued in next comment)

I would suggest that the only thing that anyone re...

2009-07-15T17:37:16.147-05:00

I would suggest that the only thing that anyone really needs to decide in this debate is whether or not fetuses are humans too. If they are, then it's perfectly acceptable to protect them they way you'd protect any other human being.

I agree completely. But of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a pregnant woman is entitled to decide for herself whether, and when, to terminate or continue a pregnancy. You can only, in all humanity, give a fetus the same rights as you would any other human being - which means they are no more entitled to make use of another human's body against her will than any other human would be. Abortion thus remains absolutely the decision of the pregnant woman, not the state.

So the only question is *when* they become human, and I think that serious research into that question is very worthwhile.

If you like, but that can't affect a woman's right to choose abortion, since that right is solidly based on her being human, and thus entitled to decide for herself whether or not to donate the use of her body - whether or not such donation keeps another human alive.

By the way, seventy thousand women die each year as a direct consequence of being unable to get access to safe, legal abortion. Twice that number die in childbirth. The "pro-life" murders of doctors are the most blatant example of the "pro-life" movement's violence and inhumanity, but the steady death toll of women - and the fetus they were carrying - is an even greater indictment against the "pro-life" movement's claim to care for fetuses.

Comments on Conversion Diary: How I became pro-life

Yonmei, Forgive me, but I don't think there's any...

Paladin, your pro-forced pregnancy rants just make...

Alpha Wolff, aren't you glad your mother-in-law ha...

Alpha Wolff, aren't you glad your mother-in-law ha...

Yonmei wrote, in reply to Alpha Wolff: Alpha Wolf...

Alpha Wolff, aren't you glad your mother-in-law ha...

My mother-in-law was advised to abort my wife beca...

Yonmei, I have to admit: your last comment sent m...

Slavery is the state of being in which one person ...

Yonmei wrote: Cruelty and dehumanization such as ...

Okay... dead computer or not, here we go... Yonme...

(*grumble*) Sorry, Yonmei... I'm not ignoring you...

I'm just about to go out, Paladin, so I don't have...

Yonmei wrote: The change from fetus to baby is an...

Whoops! I didn't address your last post, Yonmei; ...

[Paladin] Second: there is no such thing as a "saf...

Yech. Computers are not my friends today. I'll l...

Yonmei wrote, in reply to my comment: [Paladin] C...

Would you be willing to explain your reasoning for...

Certainly... and also whether she is born, or not....

Yonmei wrote, in reply to my comment: [Paladin] t...

that right is intrinsic to all with a human nature...

(cont'd, for Yonmei:) Question #1: would it be m...

Sorry for being such a "Johnny-come-lately"; I've ...

I would suggest that the only thing that anyone re...

(grumble) Sorry, Yonmei... I'm not ignoring you...