I found out I was pregnant on New Year’s Eve. I had a feeling and plus I was late – a solid five days late. So on a trip to the store to get ingredients for a Mexican chicken soup, I bought my first pregnancy test; I watched anxiously as it jostled down the conveyor belt next to the jalapeños and canned tomatoes. Pee on the stick, wait two minutes, decipher. There they were, two intersecting blue lines. Well, this is happening.
I was consciously pregnant for seven days. I was able to terminate the pregnancy a mere week after I discovered it. For this, I am incredibly lucky.
I am incredibly lucky this happened to me in the United States, in California, on December 31st, 2016 and not a day after January 20th, 2017. I am incredibly lucky that I was able to terminate the pregnancy because I chose to, not because it threatened my life. I want to share my experience with you, dear Pant Suit Nation, because the ability to learn you’re pregnant and make a choice is not a guarantee, it’s far from the status quo around the world, and it’s in jeopardy. We must continue to fight for the right to choose.
As I write this, the right to choose is actively under threat in the United States. On January 12th the Senate took the first step in repealing parts of the Affordable Care Act that control how much money the government provides for Medicaid and private healthcare services. If this resolution passes the House, and President Trump signs it (two likely events), Planned Parenthood, the largest resource for abortions in the U.S, could lose 40% of its funding. Furthermore, Virginia and Florida are in the midst of proposing bans on abortions at 20 weeks of development, joining Ohio and Kentucky who just passed the ban. Decisions that could make it impossible or extremely expensive to have an abortion are being made right now.
I took care of my abortion with a pill provided by my primary care provider in San Francisco. In total, it cost me $350 out of pocket (my partner offered to help, and if he didn’t offer, I was going to ask). I decided not to go through insurance because it would have likely cost more.
The pregnancy was six weeks along. The ultra-sound I voluntarily received and voluntarily looked at displayed a geode-like dark blob shape of cells and blood that would develop into a fetus. In some states it’s mandatory to have an ultra-sound and look at it if you want to have an abortion. I chose to do an ultra-sound rather than blood work to determine the progress of the pregnancy, and I was curious so I looked at the blob before taking the pills to expel it from my body.
The process was easy and painless, besides the heavier-than-normal cramps. I didn’t feel sad or regretful when I was going through it and I still don’t now as I type this with an empty uterus. When I tell my friends, many of them respond with words of consolation, feeling sorry for me and offering to do anything they can to support me. When I tell them, “it was OK, I am OK, in fact I’m happy and feeling so lucky,” the conversation turns to one of empowerment but I have to take it there.
I’m 28, unmarried (with a fantastic, supportive partner), about to move across the country and start a new career. According to a recent report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it costs an average of $233,610 to raise a child in the United States today. Meanwhile, I’m still paying off my college loans.
I believe I will be a wonderful mother if/when I’m ready to be one. I believe the world will be a better place when every woman everywhere can choose whether or not she is ready to step into the radically life-altering job of Mother. I believe having an abortion should not be a shameful thing and that the media is dominated by too many fearful aborted fetus stories. I am so damn lucky. I am proud I made my decision.
And, if one day you find yourself staring at two intersecting blue lines on a stick you just peed on, I hope you’ll feel empowered to make your own decision too.
Brilea Rose, I like your approach: direct and sensible. My advice, however, since I have been trapped in Geek Girl’s circular and off-on-a-tangent arguments (for their own sake) before, is to suggest you take a deep breath, walk around the block, and ignore her entirely in future. There are other people truly worth discussing and debating with.
Oh, Valerie Tarico, by this stage you should be aware that you are being played by a pro. Geek Girl will argue non sequiturs til the bovines return to the barn. Get out before it’s too late.
Ah, OFH, you’re catching on!
Well said, Valerie.
Good run down. And thanks for the Roe vs. Wade points. Just in case you are new to 48 Hills (as with others’) Comments sections, good well-informed writers like you need not find new ways to say the same things over and over or fall into the petty argument traps a few people (whose names you will get to know quickly) set for the unwary person who assumes others will read intelligently and engage in civil discourse. I suggest you just refer them to what was said before.
Agreed. Hopefully, we shall all be able to keep our rights and fulfill our responsibilities as individuals.
Well put, OFH. You live up to your name.
Abortion is murder. Your baby already had a heartbeat.
Of course they don’t hit you for failing to pay a fine. These days they use collection that badger you until you pay. Or they boot your car.
Well like I keep saying, there is no hitting or physical force involved. Its coercion. You know what that is right ? If you dont pay a fine, they dont hit you. They put you in jail
I would not call someone hitting you, “using your body.” The way it is often explained is, “If you pull your fist back to punch someone, that is assault. If you punch them, that is battery.” If someone is punching you, bodily autonomy is probably the least of your worries.
Cynthia, don’t go for the jugular of 4th Gen SF. She wasn’t saying that at all.
When you’re older (I’m 52) and can look backwards and see just how small the number of childbearing years are, it’s painful when you or your friends have difficulty becoming pregnant when they’re ready. I thought I lost my chance- and it was the one thing I wanted in life- and had my first and only child at 42. I feel lucky.
My sister had an abortion at 19- it was a hard choice for her but the right one- but she never was able to have a child later (married in her late 30s, diagnosed with breast cancer, lifesaving treatment put her in early menopause). One decidion didn’t preclude the other; time ran out and her health was at stake.
Choices are hard and sometimes they have unseen reverberations felt decades later.
That’s all I’m/we’re saying. It’s not a warning or lack of understanding but an offering of wisdom and warmth from the sisterhood.
It was jarring to me reading your headline and I feel sad that you used the word “lucky” about having had an abortion. Yet, I do understand in this political climate that access to abortion is becoming a more tenuous right and the fear of it being taken away is frightening to many women of child-bearing age.
Please understand I am not being critical of your decision: I defend a woman’s right to choose and I understand your sense of relief.
The decision to have a child – or not- is one of the most important decisions in a woman’s life: If you do move forward, you are wholly responsible for the health, happiness and education of a new little being. It is an awesome and sometimes frightening undertaking and yes, it is expensive and yes, it does limit other life choices or at least delay some goals.
Wrapped within your elation, I also believe you must have felt a small tinge of grief- or you may have one in the future- when you think about “what might’ve been” (had you been older, ready to have children, not moving across the country, in a better financial position, etc.)
I think having an abortion is a difficult choice but I’m relieved it’s still legal though becoming less readily available as clinics close and Trump writes more scary executive orders and makes appointments.
That does not make any sense. They are using your body without your consents. That is a clear violation of bodily autonomy. Like I said no physical force would be involved only coercion. Coercion is noy battery. So no. Battery is just physical force.
Battery, for the most part, involves someone striking another, seeking to cause injury. That is not just violating bodily autonomy. It is causing physical, and emotional, harm.
Do you seriously think this is a valid rebuttal? Personally, given the nature of the discussion, at the very least, we should err on the side of caution, rather than simply saying, “So what if it is a human life…it’s still an inconvenience.” Hmmm, murder is okay, as long as it is done in privacy? That’s a pretty weak argument.
I could, of course, make the same observation about you. Of course, I am offering actual arguments. You are simply offering, well, nothing.
Clearly, you have no real arguments. But hey, thanks for playing.
I am glad, grateful and even a little joyful to know you were able to get an abortion, Cara Harshman. All women should have the ability to make the choice you made or make a choice she deems right for her.
GEt some professional help, Geek_Girl. You are obviously delusional.
I pray that Geek_Girl never becomes a mother. No child should be raised by such a bigoted ignoramus.
You are only making up what you believe is ‘exactly right’. There is zero proof that what you wrote is ‘exactly rights’.
You write religious zealotry, bigoted nonsense. You do not know when a bunch of cells in a womb becomes a human. No one does, which is why the woman whose body holds such cells gets to decide. It doesn’t get more private than that and the constitution gives us a right to privacy.
You don’t know, and no one can know, if ‘one has lost its right to live’. She might have miscarried. Not every combo of sperm and egg result in babies being born and it is voo doo nonsense to think one can know this about any combo of sperm and egg.
The law passed by some regressive states are unconstitutional according to Roe V. Wade, a case I happen to know very well for I presented it in law school and did an entire Moot Court Competition on a case involving Roe v. Wade. Unless and until Roe v. Wade is explicitly overturned, and I know there is a risk it will be with the regressive judges Don-Boy is likely to appoint, that day is years off. The law moves slowly. Roe v. Wade held that the constitutional right to privacy applies to our bodies: if we have no privacy in our own bodies, we have no privacy rights at all.
Religious beliefs are not facts. Religious beliefs are not truth. Religious beliefs are beliefs, no one really knows when a fertilized human egg becomes a human.
I remember when I first felt my baby, a moment sometimes called the ‘quickening’. Until such a quickening moment, I do not believe — not fact, but in my body, I define things, not society and not government — the cells inside me were a human with the same rights as me.
Instead of quarreling about abortion, if this society really wanted to avoid abortions, young men and women would receive VERY good education about how human procreation works. It really is possible to avoid pregnancy without taking the pill. I was sexually active for 8 years before I conceived my daughter and that conception was deliberate. I learned how my cycle works, knew when I was in fertile flow and guess what? I used restraint on days I might have gotten pregnant. I am not opposed to the pill or IUD’s. I had an IUD briefly. I just could never convince myself that taking fake hormones for years on end could be good for me or having junk placed in my uterus was good for me. I did sometimes ask male partners to use condoms but mostly I didn’t have sex on days when I might have conceived until I wanted to.
The wacko right religious zealots try to suppress education about human fertility. Shame on them.
Well gee care to elaborate ?
No, it is protection from harm.
There is protection from battery. Ita bodily autonomy.
Doesnt mean its not there.
To negate something means, in this case, to remove it, or deny it. Let’s cut through all the obfuscation here. The issue is not about responsibility, it is about the right to life. This is why it is so common to here the pro-life moment called “anti-choice. It avoids the real argument. And, of course, “pro” is seen as better than “anti.”
Denying abortion is NOT about forcing someone to take responsibility! It is about protecting a life. That is the problem. You want to argue a point you think you can win with, while avoiding the real issue.
It is a basic human right to not be subjected to assault and battery. It is a right to not be harmed.
As I said, it was “found” in other rights granted in the Constitution. It is not specifically spelled out.
What exactly do you mean when you say ” negate the idea of authority”
What I am saying is that if you deny a women an abortion because you think she should take reponsibility for her actions then the same should be done for everything. It would only be fair.
Its not protection from battery sorry that was a mistake.
Okay then change what I said to battery. What changes ? Maybe I am not understanding you correctly. Its bodily autonomy that protects you from that. Its bodily autonomy that say no one can deprive you the right to control your body. Its protection from battery. They would not have to use physical force. Its more like coercion.
Second, the right of privacy was denominated a liberty which found its source and its protection in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 253 – See more at:
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation11.html#sthash.2KUyCMx0.dpuf
I did not say that as an insult. I said it as an admonition. You do seem to avoid having to deal with hard questions. It is a common fault we all engage in at times.
You keep saying that a pregnant women can kill her child, while seeming to argue that smokers should be refused treatment in an attempt to negate the idea of authority. Or do you ACTUALLY believe that smokers should be denied treatment?
Actually, assault is an attempt to initiate harmful or offensive contact. Tackling you would be battery. Granted, except in an emergency, you would be free to give verbal agreement, and the paper you sign is simply legal proof that you gave that agreement. It prevents you from later claiming you did not. You generally also sign a paper that says you will not sue for negligence, but that is not legally binding. You cannot sign away a right to sue for something that has not yet happened.
How do I hate resposibility ? Its you who said others dont have to take reponsibility but a pregnant women does. Why does it matter if pregnancy is a disease ? Its unwanted like a disease but no not one. Just because pregnancy is not a disease doesn’t mean someone wants it.
In order for it to be assault, they have to tackle you. The law would force you to sign a paper giving them permission. The law would force you to sign the paper or its jail.
You said I don’t want to think.
Really? I haven’t heard anything from you. I have seen things you have written…. But I do not recall insulting you. If I have, please point it out.
Have you ever had surgery, or an invasive medical procedure? One of those pieces of paper gives permission for the doctor to perform it. Otherwise, except in an emergency, where exceptions are made, it would legally be an assault, and battery.
You seem to hate responsibility. And yes, it does matter.
Careful I heard a couple of insults from your mouth too.
I wasn’t apologizing. It was actually invented for the Griswold decision, which involved birth control, but was expanded on in Roe. It was referred to as being in the “penumbras” and “emanations” of other rights by William O. Douglas. Again, such a “right” did not exist at all before Griswold. And you never have a right to kill.
No need to apologize. Right to bodily autonomy is included the right to privacy which is in the consititution. That was not invented or made up during roe vs wade. You can never give up your bodily autonomy rights. Having sex does not cancel out your rights. You have the right to engage your body in any activity you want… A women should not have her rights taken away because of how her body natural works.
That does not matter either. Its still taking reponsibility.
If the law were to give doctor the right to take your bodily autonomy, it would not be assault. Because they are not attacking you. They dont need to. It either would be jail or donation.
How so? What did you mean to convey?
Actually, it is not so much “bodily autonomy” as it is a protection against what would be, effectively, assault. Well, in the case of a living donor. In the case of a deceased donor, it is a bit more complex. If a person is not a donor, it becomes a decision for the family, provided the person is an acceptable donor.
This is true. And is another good argument for restrictions on where one can smoke, or better, the elimination of tobacco.
So, you are actually not arguing for that position, but using it as a lame straw man argument. And you are resorting to insults, because you are losing the argument. Oh well.
So the answer is yes we should deny smokers treatment. If thats how you idiotic prolifers want to govern the world then so be it.
Actually smoking also harms other people by populating the air.
Same thing with organ donation. You have bodily autonomy protecting you from force donation.
Literally has nothing to do with what I said.
Yes smoking might be a bit different from abortion, but so fucking what. Are you saying you only have to take reponsibiliy for your actions if you kill someone ? Yes smoking does not kill anyone but does that mean they shouldnt take responsibility ?
Pregnancy is not a disease. It is not “unhealthy.”
Sorry, but no, it is not actually in the Constitution. Roe v, Wade was based on a right to privacy that was invented by the justices. Prior to Roe, there was no such “right.” And, again, the woman should have invoked her right to bodily autonomy before having sex. And while she has autonomy over her body, it is not the only one involved.
Well all situations uses the same logic prolife used to jusify making abortion illegal. If you cause your diease take responsibility for your actions. If you caused your cancer, then you should be denied treatment. If your unhealthy lifestyle is the main reason whu you are in that postition then yes take responsibility for your actions. If a pregnant person has to take responsibility then everyone should fucking take responsibility.
I already know the answer. I know the answer to all my questions. It is about bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy allows you to control who uses your body. Who is using the mothers body ? The fetus. Therefore denying a woman an abortion is violating her bodily
autonomy. Bodily autonomy is protected in the consitution therefore abortion should remain legal.
And both of them cause a death. Granted, my friend was not denied treatment. He just finally succumbed to the disease. And smoking is stupid. I would not be averse to banning tobacco, but it is unlikely to happen. I do support lawsuits against tobacco companies, and I would love to seem to put out of business. Quitting smoking wasn’t easy, but it was a smart thing for me to do. I hate to imagine what I would be like if I hadn’t.
So techincally yes both of these situation cause harm.
No, you are attempting to create a straw man argument by twisting my logic. You simply don’t want to actually think. You are faced with questions you cannot answer, so you try to change the questions. It is not really about bodily autonomy. The woman made that choice when she decided to engage in sex. She made a choice which resulted in the conception of another human being. At that point, it is not JUST her body that is an issue. The child did not ask to be conceived. It did not come, unwelcome. Now, you speak in terms of moral versus legal. If abortion is not moral, it is because it involves killing another without adequate justification. That is not just a moral issue. It is a legal issue as well,
Well, at least you are honest. And you have staked out a position that you are free to hold. But, you have proven my argument. Abortion, by being the taking of an innocent life, without proper justification, is immoral, and under the standards of the law, should be illegal.
They are hardly “wasted.” If we took your attitude, most medical treatments would be denied. People with Type II Diabetes would be denied because they did not follow a health diet. People with certain cancers would be denied because they were not vegetarians. People with certain other diseases would be denied because they ARE vegetarians. People in car accidents would be denied because they did not driver safely. The list could go on, and on. All so YOU can avoid dealing with the fact that abortion involves killing a human being.
Seriously? You think we should deny medical treatment to smokers? That is about as crazy an idea as I have heard. And yet, you think a woman should be able to kill her child because it is an inconvenience. A smoker is doing harm to his or her self. A woman seeking an abortion is killing another human being. For convenience. Sorry, there is a big difference, to say the least. It is not a matter of admitting I am wrong. It is a matter of not accepting your absurd position.
Seriously, try actually thinking, rather than blindly following ideology.
Because of their irrresponsibility and stupidity, time and resources have been wasted. Its about taking responsibility regardless of the situation.
You just don’t wanna admit you’re wrong do you ? I said this a million times but it seems to me like that you are blind. A smoker should take responsibility for their actions. They are wasting time and resources. They knew what they were doing. Thats the same prolife excuse you give to pregnant women. Why are they exempt from taking reponsibility when pregnant women are not ?
Lung failure can be treated by Oxygen Therapy and Ventilator Support.
How are they absurd ? I am mirroring your logic. Don’t like what you see ? Change your mindset. If you have enough brain capacity, you’ll see my comparsion actually make sense. Its bodily autonomy. Refusing to donate an organ will result in someone’s death. Its not rocket science. You can not take someone’s bodily autonomy in order for someone to live. Prime example. We are under no obligation to give up anything for anyone which is why abortion should be legal. It is moral no but should be legal YES.
I know abortion kills a human but I still think abortion should be legal. I think choice trumps life.
I’m not beating around the bush. I am simply allowing you to make absurd arguments. You are comparing making someone do something potentially harmful to allowing someone to kill a child. We have never required anyone to do something active for another. It may be the right thing to do, but it cannot be required. If I see you crossing the street in front of an oncoming car, I am not required to run and shove you out of the way. I am not even required to warn you. Doing either would certainly be a good thing, but it is not required. On the other hand, we do forbid people from doing things that harm another. If I am driving a car, and I see you crossing the street, and I don’t attempt to stop, then I would be guilty of a crime. Even more so, if I speed up to insure that I hit you. You are attempting to create a comparison that is not valid. If someone stabbed a person and damaged their kidney in an attempt to murder them, or otherwise do them harm, and it was their only good kidney, then forcing them to donate one would be a moral choice. I am actually not sure of the legality, as I don’t know that such an unusual situation has ever arisen. But that is about as close a true analogy as I can imagine. I fear you are the one beating around the bush.
IF it could be absolutely proven, beyond a doubt, that abortion does not involve the taking of a human life, I would concede that choice would be the prevailing issue. But, what if the opposite were true. What if it were established that it is killing an innocent human being, except in rare cases? Would you concede that the right to life trumps choice?
You are now attempting to employ logical fallacies. There is a considerable difference between effectively forcing someone to face a horrible death without appropriate recourse and denying a woman the right to kill her child for convenience. As to your absurd claim about lung failure, I had a very good friend who died of COPD.
Good for you. Should we *force* people to donate kidneys right away. Stop beating around the bush.
What do you mean does not fit the crime ? Its taking reponsibility for your choices. You smoked and you knew what would happen. Isnt that not the same bullshit excuse you give pregnant women ? All of a sudden its different now? Funny.
Smoking results in lung failure. If you have a lung failure, you wont die. Life won’t be easy and you won’t be able to do the things you used too.
Because the punishment does not fit the crime. Yes, smoking is not a wise choice, but it is not a reason to deny treatment. In fact, it is exceedingly rare that treatment is ever denied to save a life. To do so is immoral, and illegal.
If my kidney could save someone’s life, then yes, I would be willing. It would be wrong to refuse.
If everyone was willing to donate then we would not have a waiting list. I understand that some people are organ donators but what about donating your kidney right now to someone who has both kidney failure ? If your organ matches theirs then ……
I just do not understand. Why shouldn’t the smoker take reponsibility for his actions ?
What an absurd idea. Of course not. That would be like saying that we should refuse treatment to someone who attempts suicide, or who is injured in a car accident if they were at fault. Personally, I would like to see a system like what exists in England, where coverage is pretty much universal, unless someone opts out by choice, and people don’t have the sort of ridiculous waits that some do here. People claim that people have to wait for treatment for excessively long times in England or Canada. That is actually not the case. Here, they do here, as well, if they don’t have the money to pay out of pocket, or insurance to cover it, unless it is an emergency. It can take months to get an appointment at SFGH for routine care. If it is urgent, it will often still take weeks.
Interesting you should bring this up. In France, the law is a bit different. Instead of our current system, where you must “opt in,” it is presumed that you are an “organ donor” unless you specifically state you are not. This eliminates the problem of people neglecting to make the choice. Most people are quite willing to donate, with there being rare exceptions based on either belief in insane conspiracy theories, or religious issues. Some sects simply do not believe the body should be “mutilated” after death, including both organ donation, and autopsies. This would be a better system than what we have now, and it would not violate anyone’s rights.
I did answer this already. I am both pro healthcare and pro welfare. As I said, I think we have an obligation to assist those who are less fortunate. Sadly, in much of the country, the “safety net” is a joke. Here in California, the state chose to expand MediCal. I know, at one time, in Alabama the only health care available to the homeless was a van that was run by a group of doctors who did care, but they were so poorly funded, the only prescription drugs they could supply were ones donated by people who no longer needed them. If they didn’t have what was need, the patient was pretty much out of luck. I think that we also should have programs that provide nutrition for those who cannot afford it, and especially for children, and the elderly. Right now, SNAP, which is the new name for “Food Stamps,” “assumes” that there will be some other source of income, even if a person has none. They do not provide enough for a person with no resources to have adequate food for a month, That is outrageous. I have volunteered in food banks, and feeding programs, that attempt to cover that need.
If the purpose of this article is to convince people that surgical abortion should be legal and available I think the point is well received. however, i don’t think Trump is as much a threat to the social conservative movement as people think. There are other far more dangerous threats to be worried about.
The candidate for secretary of state just said in so many words that he would be ok declaring war on China by blocking any development by China in the South China Sea. The secretary of Energy doesn’t even know what nuclear regulations are. And our new President still has yet to fill about 3000 mid level government positions without having a clue what these people will actually be doing.
Gay marriage and abortion will be last on people’s concerns in a real war.
This question is important. It reveals how truly “prolife” you are. If you were to say no, it would be clear you are not “pro-life” but pro-birth. That does not fully address my response. Refusing to donate blood or organs WILL end in someone’s death. So should we deny people bodily autonomy and force them to donate organs and blood ?
Good for you. Should we refuse treatment for smokers and tell them to take reponsibility for their actions ?
Actions speaks louder than words. You don’t need to say it in order for us to understand what you mean. No right is absolute ? Yes you are right. You have the right to live unless your right to live threatens someone’s bodily autonomy hence the reason why don’t force people to donate blood and organs. They have the right to bodily autonomy like pregnant women should. It does not matter what you think. But answer my questions are you pro healthcare and pro welfare ?
Now, there you go again, putting words in my mouth. No right is absolute. I think women do not have the right, with very limited exceptions, to take the life of an unborn child. I think that child has the right to live.
I stopped smoking in 2001. I realized, quite literally, that the habit controlled me, not the other way around. I have taken responsibility for my actions. It isn’t always easy, but it is the right thing to do.
I hate to break it to you, but yes, I am pro-healthcare and pro-welfare. I think we should do everything possible to insure that children are not impacted by poverty. And I think that discrimination against pregnant women is appalling. You are doing exactly what the others have done, trying to ascribe arguments to me that I have no made, and positions that I do not hold. And yes, I have given blood for years. I learned that from my father, who also gave blood. I was thrilled the first time I received a Gallon pin, because I remember my father getting those. So far, I have not had the occasion to donate any organs. But if I found I could help someone by giving a kidney, part of my liver, or bone marrow, I would be willing.
All that said, you need to realize that any right is limited. Bodily autonomy ends when it leads to the death of another human being.
You think a women should be stripped of jer rights
You do realize no one takes reponsibility for their actions right ? If you smoke and treatment, you must be responsible for your actions
You do realize all you idiots are the same right ? You fight for the rights of the unborn until they are born. Are you pro-healthcare and pro-welfare ? Are you going to fight to make sure the workplace is friendly to pregnant women or are you going to sit on you fat butt all day ? You claim you give a care but you do not care. Stop playing your tricks games.
By the way, you do realize not donating your blood and organs as well as money is harming another human being right ? Thats the thing sweetheart, you have the right to bodily autonomy for whatever reason. If its for a better life then so be it
Oh my, the knots you are tying yourself into.
Actually, I have. You have no adequate response.
You can respond in whatever way you want, obviously. It won’t change what your argument is or isn’t.
And fine, “I said it was because of the greater good” is ambiguous but it can indeed be interpreted several different ways. It is, indeed, good for a woman not have to keep a pregnancy she didn’t want.
You still haven’t answered why it’s OK to kill a person if that person was conceived in rape.
Let me be clear, I said nothing about the greater social good. I said it was for the good of the woman. It is, as you have completely ignored, a matter of self-defense. The social good has absolutely nothing to do with it. Now, I should have labeled this as simply what it is, another lame straw man argument, but since you at least introduced a new claim, I am giving you this much. But, if you don’t stop making stuff up, and claiming it is what I said, I will only answer you with “Straw man argument.” Respond to what I say, not what you want to claim that I said.
As promised, “Straw man argument.” I have already answered this. Go back and read what I said.
Your position is not consistent.
It is not based on concern for the fetus.
It is good that you think a woman shouldn’t be punished for being raped, but if you think it’s for the greater social good to let her end her pregnancy because she was raped (which I agree with, obviously) then that is in no way consistent with the idea that a fetus is a person.
Too thirsty? Okay, whatever.
Now, not that there’s anything wrong with living in Vallejo, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you just made that up.
And it’s a very bizarre opposition to take.
No, you are the one who is trying, quite unsuccessfully, to deal with the logic of my position. That is why you keep ignoring what I say, and trying to argue against a position I have never taken. You keep telling me what I “feel.” You keep telling me what I do, and do not, believe. I have said, and I will repeat, for the last time, that I have never said that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion if she is raped simply because she did not choose. I said it was because of the greater good. She was violently attacked. She was forced to become pregnant, and is, most likely, emotionally traumatized. As I pointed out, she should NOT BE PUNISHED FOR BEING RAPED!!!! What part of SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED FOR BEING RAPED do you not understand? If you shot someone, at random, it is murder. If you shot someone who is trying to rape you, it is self defense. You can’t seem to grasp even that simple concept. If you keep repeating this tactic of trying to tell me what I am saying, and trying to refute arguments, I have no made, my answer will simply be, “Straw man argument.” I have explained my position, which has been consistent. You keep trying to create an argument that does not exist. You are clearly incapable of actual debate,
Right, and those exceptions are for self-defense or immediate injury to someone’s person.
Not, “was that person conceived in rape?”
Nothing is wrong with me. I’m just not interested. You’re too thirsty & angry as an SJW. It’s just boring as hell to everyone. Times have changed & SF is changing for the better.
It’s nice that you think so, but I’ve never lived in Vallejo.
But please link to/paste that comment.
Also, you’re not interested in people too poor to live in SF???????
What is wrong with you?
No, I am not. As I have pointed out, the law makes exceptions, very narrow exceptions, for when taking a human life is legal. You are the one who is arguing for fetuses to be killed at will.
And you still haven’t learned to not use straw man arguments. When you try to claim I am holding a position I am not, that is, by definition, a straw man argument.
I’m not interested in SJWs who are too poor to live in SF.
Interesting, since in your own Disqus replies say you live in Vallejo & commute to SF.
You are the one not treating a fetus as a person if you believe it’s OK to kill it only when the woman didn’t choose to conceive it.
Prove that a fetus is not a person. He/she has a complete genome. He/she is alive. He/she is capable of movement. He/she can feel pain. He/she has a beating heart. There is nothing, other than the chance to grow, and be nourished that is required. It does not miraculous change into a human being simply because it is born. And in fact, most pro-abortion activists will try to claim that abortion should be legal up to the moment of birth.
Also, notice how your nice and congenial tone goes away in a puff of smoke the second you get disagreed with.
I’ve never lived in Vallejo.
What are you smoking?
So we’re back to you not wanting to face up to the logic of the position you’re choosing to hold.
If you truly believed a fetus was a person, with all the same rights and legal status that children have, then you’d never argue for taking away its right to life if it were conceived in rape.
But you don’t, in fact, truly believe it’s a person, because you think it’s OK for a woman to abort it if it was conceived in rape — i.e, if she didn’t choose to engage in the activity that got her pregnant.
The fact that she’s only let off the hook, so to speak, if she didn’t choose, means that it’s about punishment for sex.
I realize you don’t like that position. You are dodging and dodging away from it, which is good, because it’s a pretty wrong position to hold. However, as I’ve said again and again, that *is* the logic of only allowing abortion in the case of rape or incest. If you don’t like the idea of pregnancy as punishment for sex, then you should argue for allowing woman to make her own decisions about her own body, whether or not she chose to have sex.
I’ve already answered this several times. Do try to keep up. Repeatedly asking a question that has been answered is not making a valid argument. It is desperation.
OMG, a bridge & tunnel person who lives in VALLEJO being offended at what me, an SF’er says, color me “scared” LOL
So if it’s a person, why is it OK to kill it just because it was conceived in rape?
Yes. I have said that a number of times.
It’s a person in both cases.
Now, if all you have is straw man arguments, and that was clearly one, then you should run along, and find something more your speed.
So she should keep this pregnancy because she might not be able to later?
Then hell, why shouldn’t she just *get* pregnant at age 21 or so because who knows if she’ll be able to later?
Matter of fact, why don’t you just go ahead and get married to the first person you start dating seriously, since who knows how easy it will be to marry later?
But wait:
A woman is raped.
She gets pregnant.
According to you, it’s OK to kill her 3-month-old fetus. (A person, by your logic.)
Even though you just said that this 3-month-old fetus is a person.
And yet, it’s not really, because nobody is arguing that it would be OK to kill a 3-year-old child if that child were conceived in rape.
Oh, and it’s also not OK for the same woman to kill her 3-month-old fetus if she chose to engage in sex.
Funny magic trick that fetus plays in your mind: it’s a person when she chose, and not a person when she didn’t.
I support your decision however upon reflection these are your peak ovulation & having a baby years. Women actually do not have much time to have a child, nature is kind of cruel like that. When we’re actually mature enough & have ourselves together, say, in our late 30’s & 40’s, we can’t have children anymore without the huge expense of IVF. And IVF is still not covered by any insurance company, obamacare or not. I also understand that having a baby might put you in poverty or make you a single mother in a really expensive city currently (SF, where it’s the rare relationship/marriage that lasts). I have no idea where you are moving to, good luck but hopefully I’ve left you with things to think about for the future.
Since fetuses are not people, it’s not hard to defend.
A woman can abort a pregnancy — yes, killing a fetus — whether or not anyone else agrees with her reasons. Whether or not she chose to engage in the activity that got her pregnant. That’s her right, as owner of her own body.
So one of your specific and narrow exceptions to killing a person, by your logic, is if the person was conceived in rape?
I’ve never said otherwise. That is not really a counter to my argument. A person is always a person, but there are exceptions to the general rule that you should not kill a person. Very specific and narrow exceptions. Your position is akin to saying that murder is wrong, unless the person you killed was a nuisance.
I asked that you to defend your position, not repeat it.
Yes, not being allowed to have an abortion, and being forced to be pregnant against your will, is punishment.
I read it. I countered your argument. Now, counter my argument or admit you cannot.
Either a fetus is always a person, regardless of the circumstances of its conception, or it isn’t.
“If you are legally not allowed to have an abortion because you chose to engage in sex, then that is, in fact, a punishment for choosing to engage in sex.”
Re-read it, please.
So, you are saying that not being allowed to take the life of your unborn child, who you chose to create (unless you have NO idea where babies come from) is punishment?
You see, even though I have patiently point out your logical fallacy, you keep falling back on it.
If you are legally not allowed to have an abortion because you chose to engage in sex, then that is, in fact, a punishment for choosing to engage in sex.
Cynthia is right about simply owning where you are coming from and the implications of your moral positions. It’s ok to simply say “I feel in my gut that a fetus is in the same category as a child.” or “It broke my heart when my daughter kept miscarrying.” When a woman or man wants a child and cherishes a budding new life, we almost immediately start imagining the child that life will become, and losing (or choosing to abort) an unhealthy pregnancy feels huge because we grieve not just what is but what might have been.
No, that is no what I am doing. Having a child is not a punishment. But that you think it is, does explain a lot. Simply put, I don’t hold your disdain for motherhood, or human life.
No, that was not remotely a “sideswipe insult.” I happen to have attended City College. In fact, I will probably take future classes there. It is an excellent school. Several faculty members are very close friends. Funny you accuse me of using “stupid” as an insult, when I have not used the word.
City College admits anyone who applies. They do not even require a high school diploma. They require placement tests for new students. Some place high, as I did with English. Some place low, because the public school system failed them. Some place in the middle, as I did in math. If you place low enough, they will start you with basic reading, or basic arithmetic. I know of one student who started at the lowest level of remedial math, who went on to complete Calculus III with an A. I myself placed in Intermediate Algebra, and completed Calculus I with an A. Yes, there are some who want to let students decide. And that would result in students failing, becoming discouraged, and dropping out.
Supporting abortion only when the woman *didn’t* choose to engage in the activity that led to the pregnancy is, simply, treating pregnancy as a punishment for sex.
Don’t like that position? Don’t hold it.
Not even remotely. If it was, should would be addressing what I said, not what she has canned arguments against.
Not only that, but do you realize that side-swipe insult you took at people who actually do attend City College? And the way that you use “stupid” as an insult?
No, you did that yourself. I am trying to get you to actually use your brain, and think. You are trying to avoid actually having to do that, because, quite simply, you are afraid that you might be wrong. By trying to force straw man arguments, you avoid dealing with real arguments.
But hey, I’m used to this sort of thing. I can’t tell you how many right wing whack jobs do the same thing.
Ok, now I’m starting to laugh out loud whenever I see the word straw man. 🙂 Your logic is sound, Cynthia. I’m off to the hardware store.
Again, you keep trying to turn this into an attack on *me* and my education and writing skills. I’m not biting.
This is about your positions, and what they mean for women.
Clearly, that top-tier school did not do much for writing skills. That sentence is incoherent.
I’m not angry. I am thoroughly amused by your rather lame efforts at debate. Let’s be honest, you are not used to having your beliefs challenged, and you are the one who is angry. You keep trying, rather desperately, to tell me what my positions are, so they will fit within what you you believe you can refute, but if you actually had a degree from a top-tier school, you would have been taught that this is a logical fallacy.
What you really mean is, I should let you define my positions, falsely, because then you can rip up that straw man, rather than dealing with what I am actually saying. Perhaps what you should do, is take a step back, and ask yourself why you have to try to tell me what I am saying, rather than responding to what I am actually saying. Of course, that would clearly take more guts than you seem to have.
I had info to refute your insults, and then I took it out, because it’s a sure sign that someone is losing an argument when they begin to make it personal. I’m not interested in taking that bait.
You are angry because I’m telling you that your positions are messed up and wrong. I’m telling you that positions have content, regardless of whether you want them to have content or not.
You should woman up and own your position. Own the fact that your position is, by definition, treating pregnancy as a punishment for sex. If you’re going to stake out a position, have the guts to defend it.
Again, you are using a straw man argument. I have stated my views, more than once, and yet you are trying to attribute a view to me that is not what I hold. THAT is a perfect example of a straw man argument.
Go back and read what I said, and respond to what I said. Not what you want to imply that I said, because it is easier for you to argue against. There is nothing remotely logical about your attempts. They are logical fallacies. I’ve said what I mean, and you keep trying to argue against positions I have not taken, because, well, apparently you can’t deal with what I actually said. This is not that unusual. I see, ironically, the same approach from extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. They try to attribute an argument that they think they can counter, and ignore what you actually said.
I will concede, it is remotely possible that you simply lack anything beyond a rudimentary ability to comprehend the written word. But, I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in that regards.
If I am wrong, I suggest you look up the proper definition of “straw man argument,” and then ponder your statement “Actually, if you are against abortion, that *is* what you mean.” That is a perfect, textbook example.
If I am right, it is not too late to enroll at City College, which offers excellent classes for those who have trouble with reading comprehension.
So:
1) Illegal in all cases, right? (Except probably to save the woman’s life.)
2) If it’s killing a person, then why shouldn’t the woman be punished? She caused the death by procuring the abortion.
What you keep getting annoyed by, and calling me putting up a “straw man,” is the fact that I am calling you out for the logical conclusion of your arguments. You keep wanting to shy away from them, saying, “No! That’s not what I mean!”
Actually, if you are against abortion, that *is* what you mean.
Actually, I am using it exactly right.
As to your worldview, I find it disturbing to say the least. No, it is not taking responsibility at all. Taking the life of a child is wrong. If one cannot provide for the child, then adoption is an option. In fact, I used to have a bumper sticker on my car that read, “Don’t Abort, I’ll Adopt.” I meant it, and gave a woman my phone number when she asked if I was serious. Sadly, I never heard from her. I did have one person leave a not on my car that read “F*ck your closed mind!” I found it rather an interesting contradiction, and I believe it says a lot about the pro-abortion forces. I certainly would NOT call that person “pro-choice.”
Guess what? You are perfectly free to disagree with me. Unlike some, I do not have any desire to deny other people the right to hold their beliefs.
Your claim about rape is rather odd. First off, the victims of rape range from infants to elderly. Second, I have actually heard people make remarks like, “She really thinks she is something. I have a good mind to rape her and teach her a lesson.” I mean really, most guys can likely find some woman willing to have sex, and if they really can’t, they can hire a prostitute.
Yes, some might find the violence arousing, but in such a case, it is the violence, not the woman. Sort of like how a serial killer might find killing a woman arousing. No, rape is a violent crime. Period. Saying it is about sexual arousal starts down the road towards justifying it…even if that is where you think you are head.
Seriously, you’ve never heard of the “she was asking for it” defense?
Abortion should be illegal because it is willful taking of an innocent HUMAN life.
First off, that was not the issue. Second off, I don’t agree with the policy in El Salvador. While I believe that abortion should be illegal, I believe it is the doctors performing the procedure, and those who assist them, that should be prosecuted. The women are more victims than criminals. El Salvador is a country that has pretty much no regard for human rights.
Some women also have been accurately jailed for having abortions.
I think we understand perfectly well what you are saying, Geek Girl. We just don’t agree.
Oh. Btw, I’m a psychologist and that thing about rape not being about sex at all is total bullshit. Rape is the intersection of violence and sexual arousal–the violence itself is sexually arousing.
I don’t think you are using the concept of a strawman argument exactly right. I wasn’t including abortion among birth-timing tools and then arguing in favor of contraceptives (although I do argue in favor of contraceptives). I was arguing specifically that abortion itself promotes positive moral ends.
In my wordview, having an abortion *is* taking responsibility for your actions while adopting the passive approach by carrying forward an ill-timed and unwanted pregnancy and gestating that pregnancy into a child born under avoidable adverse circumstances is irresponsible. Nature causes reduced fertility and spontaneous abortion in many species for the precise purpose of optimizing the well-being of offspring. Raising a child to flourish is an immensely challenging, wonderful and important task, and giving birth simply to “take responsibility” trivializes both parenthood and personhood.
No, it is about someone taking responsibility for a choice that they knowingly made. I don’t like the word “slut.” It is insulting, and is not a word I would use. And, just so you know, this is another classic straw man argument. Look it up.
Well, let’s see….the second half of this response is a pretty good example. You make a claim that you try to impose on me, and then try to refute it.
No, what you suggest is faulty logic. Again, do you not understand the concept of greater good. Rape is not a sexual crime. It is a violent crime. Other than it being used as a weapon, rape is not about sex at all.
And again, when the woman didn’t choose to have sex, it’s OK with you, but when she chose, it magically became a child.
Why not just admit it’s about punishing the sluts who have sex?
“Straw man” …
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
If you don’t like owning the idea that abortion should be illegal in all cases, then you have to disown the idea that a fertilized egg is a person.
Actually, I do. Just as you are presuming to judge my beliefs.
Again with the straw man arguments. It is a matter of the greater good. A woman who has been raped, did not make a choice to engage in the behavior that resulted in a pregnancy. She was violated, and is the victim of a violent crime. To force her to carry the child to term compounds that violent act. Would I prefer that she choose to spare the child? Of course, but I am not going to demand that she do so. The same in cases of incest, which are actually, just another form of rape.
Again, I do not oppose abortion in the case of a rape. If the woman chose to get drunk, then she has to accept the responsibility. I mean, really, that is what this is all about. You simply don’t believe that one should accept responsibility. There are more than enough people able, and willing, to care for a child if the mother cannot, or will not.
And comparing abortion to birth control is again, a straw man argument. I do not believe birth control is wrong. I do believe that killing a child to avoid responsibility for one’s actions is.
Wait, you are still not making sense.
Killing a person is illegal.
A fertilized egg is a person, says you.
So why, exactly, should abortion not be illegal?
(You know, like in El Salvador.)
Lovely, another straw man argument…
Yes, I consider a miscarriage a tragedy. I also consider it a tragedy when anyone dies. But people do die from natural causes quite regularly. Efforts are made, often successfully, to prevent this. My daughter underwent medical treatment to prevent miscarriages. We don’t need to spend billions to research this, as it is quite well understood. In some cases, it can be treated, in other cases it occurs because of some issue that prevents the child from being viable, in which cases, there is nothing that can be done.
On the other hand, child starvation can be redressed. We have made great strides in treating leukemia and cancer. But we don’t understand these as well as we need to. And yes, there is ongoing research into the prevention of miscarriages. One study found that one in four can be prevented by lifestyle changes.
Sorry, but you are badly misrepresenting the human rights violations in El Salvador. Abortion is illegal in El Salvador. And some women have been FALSELY accused of having an abortion, and jailed for having an ABORTION, not for having a miscarriage. El Salvador has little regard for basic civil liberties, like due process. Your argument is based on a misrepresentation of facts, and has no merit or relevance.
Talk about trivializing motherhood!
You have no right to judge this woman’s decision!
You are already a mother.
Again, I pointed out El Salvador to you. It has also happened here. If it seems horrid and dystopian to consider a woman’s uterus a crime scene, that’s good — it means you still have some sense in there somewhere.
However, it’s the only consistent position if a fertilized egg is a person.
Well, it appears that all the pro-abortion side has are straw man arguments. Yes, a miscarriage is the death of a person, by natural causes. And many women do mourn that loss, if they are aware of it. In fact my daughter went through that several times. A death investigation? Crime scene? Give me a break! As I pointed out, it is from NATURAL causes. I am opposed to abortion, EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest, or a verified threat to the life of the mother. The “health” exception is simply a way of avoiding the law. And hey, if it is a threat to her fertility, I would think that she would be glad she won’t be inconvenienced any more. I mean, really, 9 months versus a human life? Seems a bit lopsided to me.
So it’s a person when she chose to have sex, and therefore shouldn’t be killed … but it’s OK to kill it when she didn’t choose?
Also, if you use the word “convenience” one more time to refer to a woman’s LIFE, you need to go sit in a corner.
See the discussion below about the misogyny inherent in calling a fertilized egg a *person.*
To clarify, I’m not referring to the embryo or fetus as a child. I was referring to what is being created through the full reproductive process.
For me, the moral issues are on the other side of this equation. I think it is immoral to bring a child into the world without stacking the odds in their favor as best we can–and I think it is even more immoral to force someone else to do so.
I think that gestating a child simply because a woman was raped or drunk or imperfect in some way or because birth control failed trivializes childhood and parenthood–and ultimately the unique qualities that we cherish in ourselves and each other. It gravely compounds the error.
For me, aborting a fertilized egg has very little moral difference from preventing that egg and sperm from meeting–which is something all people do unless, like a few Catholics and other competitive breeders, they are committed to making an attempt at procreation during each fertile period.
Do you know that half of unintended pregnancies occur while a person is using contraception–mostly because ordinary people are pretty imperfect and so there is a lot of human error in our world. I myself am grateful that I don’t have to live with all of my failings and screw-ups for the rest of my life.
When it comes to contraception, the only methods that are over 99% effective are IUDs, implants, and sterilization–all of which toggle the default setting to “pregnancy off” and so take those human factors out of the equation. But even the best methods available fail sometimes, and so does the process of gestation and fetal development itself.
Most fertilized eggs fail to implant or spontaneously abort during the first two weeks of pregnancy. Discovery Magazine had an article about the early stages of life a while back called The Good Egg. Do you consider this a tragedy? Do you think we should be spending billions to prevent it the same way we spend billions to try and redress childhood starvation, leukemia, cancer and so forth? If each unique DNA combination is a person, and all human persons are equally valuable, shouldn’t we?
Luck is only one sided. It’s sad to know while you are living your life, one has lost its right to live. If there were no plans for pregnancy, why not take birth control? $350 of contraceptive would have gotten a long way.
By your logic, every time a woman miscarries it’s the death of a person. Funeral, mourning, bereavement leave, etc. And of course the mandatory death investigation — which is a little tricky since her uterus is the crime scene, but that’s how they make it work in El Salvador.
And of course, you are opposed to abortion in *all* cases, right? Rape, incest, when it’s endangering the woman’s health or fertility or both, because this is a … person.
Right?
” use contraception next time”
Do you really not know the difference between fact and opinion? That’s usually taught in elementary school around here.
Seriously? This is your argument? No, when a man masturbates, or a woman has a menstrual cycle, that is NOT remotely a “life.” Cells die regularly. By your logic, a “life” is lost every time a skin cell dies, which would be, by your illogic, a horrible holocaust daily. A massacre of 60 billion “lives” per day. Quite staggering, given that the world population is only about 7 billion.
Yes, I am thinking about the implications. It means that a person was killed, simply to avoid an inconvenience.
If I really wanted to be snarky I would tell the truth – use contraception next time instead of blabbing your personal screw up for the world to see
So, basically, you are resorting to a straw man argument. No, it implies nothing of the sort. Except in cases of rape or incest, the woman consented to engaging in sexual intercourse. Now, it is interesting that after attacking me for referring to the embryo as a child, you do the same thing. The point is, a unique human being has been killed for convenience.
End a life?
You mean like every time a man masturbates? That’s a life. A life dies in my uterus every month when an unfertilized egg — you know, that live thing — doesn’t implant.
Oh, did you mean a *person*?
Please think about the implications of calling a seven-day-old zygote a person.
Um, these are figures that were released this week. Your snark is misplaced.
Beautifully written. Thank you for sharing your experience of how abortion helped you to be able to create the family of your own choosing.
Calling the embryo a child is an incredibly sexist thing. It implies that the only point that matters in the creation of a child is the one moment when the man actually plays a role–fertilization. The reality is that a woman’s body does the work of forming a child both before and after the process of fertilization.
Unfortunately, your child was not so lucky. You made a choice when you became pregnant. That does not make it okay to end a life.
And unless someone manages to assassinate tump and pence at the same time it will probably get worse before it gets better
$258,000? Where have you been for 30 years?
Try paying for pre-k through graduate school as you have to in most places in the United States and you’re in the range of $1.5 million per child without even considering insurance
Somewhere, Lena Dunham stews in silent jealousy…