Arguments for Abortion Mimic the Arguments for Slavery Before the Civil War
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Both the arguments for slavery in the 1800s and the arguments for abortion rely on a central claim: that a human being is less than human. The dehumanization of black people relied on pseudoscientific claims that they were inferior. The dehumanization of unborn babies relies on claims that they are "just a clump of cells" or part of a woman's body. In both cases, a growing movement of moral clarity demands that the dehumanized be granted a fundamental right long denied them: freedom and life. (Note: I am not saying abortion and slavery are the same, only that the arguments for them are similar.)
Yet the dehumanization is not the only connection between the pro-slavery arguments in 1800s America and the pro-abortion arguments today. In fact, the two movements also championed a form of "choice" that focused on the will of the master and mother over the fundamental rights of the slave and unborn. They also moved away from claims that slavery and abortion are necessary evils to claims that they are a positive good. Black pro-life activists have also condemned the targeting of black women for abortion, condemning abortion as a form of genocide.
Late last month, The New York Times's Amy Harmon wrote a revealing piece about the language in the abortion debate. She summarized the arguments of "abortion rights advocates" who blamed President Bill Clinton for stigmatizing the term "abortion" in the late 1990s with the "safe, legal, and rare" formulation. "Describing abortion as needing to be rare implied incorrectly, in the eyes of advocates, that there was something inherently wrong with having an abortion," Harmon wrote.
This criticism is quite telling. Indeed, activists today launch movements called "Shout Your Abortion" and a movement telling abortion stories called "You Know Me." Far-left "comedian" Michelle Wolf even performed a stand-up segment calling for abortion to be "on the dollar menu at McDonald's," in an effort to fight "abortion stigma." Increasingly, groups like Planned Parenthood are defining abortion as "health care" or "reproductive health care."
Yet Clinton is not responsible for "abortion stigma." That phenomenon goes back at least 2,000 years. Early Christianity forbade the killing of an unborn baby in the womb. Even Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood — which is America's largest abortion provider — condemned abortion as a "disgrace to civilization."
The "stigma" has something to do with the unavoidable moral fact that abortion kills a living human being. Thanks to modern genetics, we know that from the moment of conception an unborn baby has unique human DNA. Science, not faith, provides the strongest arguments against abortion.
Clinton supported abortion, claiming it should be "safe, legal, and rare." Yet modern abortion advocates celebrate the practice of killing babies. In fact, New York's radical abortion law goes so far as to strike down protectionsfor wanted babies who are killed when a pregnant woman is abused. In order to dehumanize the unborn, New York has ruled that killing an unborn human cannot count as "homicide."
In fact, this dehumanization also has ugly racial roots. As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out last month, the abortion movement has its roots in the eugenics movement. Margaret Sanger called for more babies for the fit and fewer for the "unfit." Governments sterilized people who were deemed unworthy to have children, and many eugenics advocates were openly racist. Indeed, just last year billboards promoted abortion specifically for black women or in black communities — most likely not with racist intentions, but with the effect of discouraging the birth of black babies.
Yet another ugly comparison comes in the language of "choice." Indeed, earlier today "Men for Choice" was trending on Twitter. The abortion group NARAL Pro-Choice America noted that "women don't usually get pregnant on their own. We need [Men for Choice] to step up and speak out for safe, legal abortion access because reproductive freedom benefits us all."
This language of "choice" and "freedom" echoes the arguments Northern Democrats used before the Civil War. In the decades before the war, Southern Democrats kept pushing for more and more land to be open to slavery. The Northwest Ordinance, one of the first laws passed under the Constitution in 1789, made slavery illegal in the territories of the United States. The Founders considered slavery a necessary evil, but they wanted to prevent it from spreading into future states.
Yet in the 1800s, Southern Democrats pushed for slavery to be extended into the territories. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 drew a line at the 36°30′ parallel, allowing Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state and allowing any territories below that line to enter as slave states. This was not enough for Southern Democrats, who held a great amount of power in the federal government. In 1854, they pushed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which opened the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to what was called "Popular Sovereignty."
Abraham Lincoln became famous for opposing Popular Sovereignty in his debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas (D-Ill.). Under Popular Sovereignty, settlers in Kansas and Nebraska would decide — by majority vote — whether the states would be "Free States" or "Slave States." Naturally, not a single slave got a vote.
Like the "pro-choice" and "reproductive freedom" rhetoric, this radical position allowed those with a voice to overrule the wishes of the dehumanized. In abortion, only the mother gets a "choice" — and according to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, pregnant women who get abortions aren't even mothers. In Popular Sovereignty, only free settlers and slave-owners got a vote. In both cases, the person with the most to lose is and was disenfranchised — in the name of freedom.
Thanks to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, bands of pro-slave and pro-free settlers engaged in skirmishes and a kind of mini-Civil War called "Bleeding Kansas."
In 1857, the Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford denied citizenship for black people. Like Roe v. Wade (1973), it codified a systemic denial of basic rights to an entire group of people.
Like the antebellum southerners, abortion activists are pushing for a federal acknowledgment of their position in the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which prevents taxpayer money from directly funding elective abortions. Democrats running for the 2020 presidential nomination have endorsed repealing the Hyde Amendment, and just today former Vice President Joe Biden received a great deal of flak from NARAL and Planned Parenthood for supporting the amendment.
The Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise were grand compromises allowing something immoral but restricting it, so that not all Americans were complicit in that evil. Similarly, the Hyde Amendment was designed to protect Americans from being forced to pay for something so many of them consider immoral.
Contrary to popular belief, abolitionists did not drive the Civil War, and Lincoln would have been happy to preserve the Union without ending slavery. The Southern states seceded because Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery, and they could brook no compromise. In fact, the Southern states had been losing their stranglehold on the Federal Government, and Lincoln's victory scared them into rebellion. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 as a war measure. In his Second Inaugural Address, Lincoln said the Civil War was God's just judgment on the United States for accepting slavery.
Pro-life advocates fear that the moral horror of abortion merits a similar punishment. The current rancor of abortion politics seems to have reached a fever pitch, but it is not likely to abate any time soon.
Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that will not outlaw abortion in the 50 states. Instead, that will allow the 50 states to make their own laws on abortion, with pro-life states outlawing it and pro-abortion states passing laws similar to New York's law and the Illinois abortion law.
Antebellum southerners defended slavery as essential for their economy. Slavery opened up economic options for the masters and undergirded Southern society, so the argument went. Similarly, abortion advocates claim that the decision to kill an unborn baby is vital for women, to allow them to gain education, prosperity, and care for their existing children. These are real concerns, just as the southerners' economic concerns about slavery were also real. Abolition did indeed roil the South's economy, but later Americans judge that it was a moral victory.
Abortion also undergirds the Sexual Revolution. The unspoken truth about "pro-choice" rhetoric is that abortion activists want people to be able to have sex without consequences, both physical and emotional. Babies do not come out of nowhere. For all the talk of "forced pregnancy," the vast majority of children are conceived through consensual sex. (Pregnancies from rape are of course a sticky issue, and Americans rightly support harsh penalties for rapists.)
The moral scourge of abortion, like the moral scourge of slavery, weighs on America's conscience. As pro-slavery advocates argued for Popular Sovereignty, so pro-abortion advocates argue for "reproductive freedom." As pro-slavery advocates dehumanized black people, so pro-abortion advocates dehumanize the unborn. As pro-slavery advocates became more radical, defending slavery as a positive good and expanding slavery into the territories, so pro-abortion advocates have become more radical, shouting their abortions, demanding an end to the Hyde Amendment, and claiming that any restrictions on abortion make America into a misogynistic theocracy.
In both cases, activists cannot silence the conscience, no matter how loud and radical they become.
Tags
Who is online
29 visitors
“The "stigma" has something to do with the unavoidable moral fact that abortion kills a living human being. Thanks to modern genetics, we know that from the moment of conception an unborn baby has unique human DNA. Science, not faith, provides the strongest arguments against abortion.
Clinton supported abortion, claiming it should be "safe, legal, and rare." Yet modern abortion advocates celebrate the practice of killing babies. In fact, New York's radical abortion law goes so far as to strike down protections for wanted babies who are killed when a pregnant woman is abused. In order to dehumanize the unborn, New York has ruled that killing an unborn human cannot count as "homicide."
In fact, this dehumanization also has ugly racial roots. As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out last month , the abortion movement has its roots in the eugenics movement. Margaret Sanger called for more babies for the fit and fewer for the "unfit." Governments sterilized people who were deemed unworthy to have children, and many eugenics advocates were openly racist. Indeed, just last year billboards promoted abortion specifically for black women or in black communities — most likely not with racist intentions, but with the effect of discouraging the birth of black babies.
Yet another ugly comparison comes in the language of "choice." Indeed, earlier today "Men for Choice" was trending on Twitter. The abortion group NARAL Pro-Choice America noted that "women don't usually get pregnant on their own. We need [Men for Choice] to step up and speak out for safe, legal abortion access because reproductive freedom benefits us all."
This language of "choice" and "freedom" echoes the arguments Northern Democrats used before the Civil War.”
No one is killing babies, if you know of someone that is? I suggest you call the police immediately and report it, (besides, I am sure they could use a good laugh).
Abortion is the termination of the life of a human being.
No, abortion is a medical procedure terminating a pregnancy. There is no human being yet.
What is a pregnancy?
When is there a human being?
1. Gestation.
2. Birth!
Then you disagree with our viability standard as a restriction on abortion?
Yes! The viability standard us just a compromise between the abortion sides. But I can accept it as a reasonable compromise. Too bad many anti-choicers cannot.
When does life start? At the whim of you and others like you?
I find that interesting. You seem very passionate about preserving a woman's right to choice, yet you find it "reasonable" to take that right away in spite of your position there is no human being lost in an abortion. What is your reason for that?
You misunderstand. I support a woman's right to choose. But I recognize viability as a compromise between the 2 sides of the debate. Considering there are those who are as anti-choice as I and others are pro-choice, I am not so unreasonable as to not allow a compromise to the other side (even if they cannot say the same). I certainly won't complain if the viability restriction is lengthened or lifted altogether. A woman shouldn't have her rights taken away regardless. But then, I doubt there are many women who want an elective abortion after viability anyway.
That seems like compromise just for the sake of compromise or just for the sake of proclaiming yourself as "reasonable." It makes it hard to see you as principled on the matter of women's rights when you are willing to compromise those rights so easily.
Either you still don't get it or are just being obtuse now. I support women's rights, including their right to choose. I'm not advocating restrictions on that right, unlike some lawmakers and/or anti-choicers. What's so difficult to understand?
Hehehehehehe, nope. Swing And a Miss!
According to their bible, it starts when the child takes it's first breath, at the time of birth.
Only up to a point, according to your own words. And apparently, that point is when someone else objects and you think a compromise will resolve the conflict.
No, but you will allow them for the sake of compromise, yes?
No, that's not what I said. Apparently, you still don't get it.
See previous statement.
Don't like abortions, don't get one. Pretty simple.
The party of, "more personal freedoms" apparently wants them for men only.
Actually we want the freedom of both male and female to have the right to life, to exist.
And to Hel! With the female already existing, right. Let's subjugate someone who already exists for something that doesn't yet exist! That's what anti-choices seem to advocate.
Sorry no one believes you.
So you think a fetus has more rights that the mother carrying it? That's ridiculous.
Men don't have the right to kill unborn babies, so what are you talking about?
That's right, as that would forcibly take away the woman's choice. But some men apparently want to take that choice away from women and force them to carry a pregnancy against their will.
Many women feel the same way. Why does it matter what sex someone is that they have an opinion on a topic?
Its mostly men who are trying to pass laws or restrictions on abortion. Who are they to decide for a woman what she can or cannot do with her body and petsonal medical choices? If a woman doesn't want an abortion, she doesn't have to. That's her choice. But the choice regatdless is a right and shouldn't be forcibly removed!
No such thing. Sorry!
No Kidding…..at least to some.
The PC version is called "Reproductive Health".
Such "Calming" Words !
Calming words? No, more like actual and accurate words utilized by a field of medicine.
#elliminateCodeBlueinsociety !
Is that supposed to mean anything to me?
Logically speaking ?
I can break it down if needed.
Is there any other way?
By all means....
[deleted]
eliminate = REMOVE !
Code Blue = HEART FAILURE !
in = as in NOT OUT !
society = WHERE ONE LIVES and IS INVOLVED !
Did that help ?
No. Still not seeing what it has to do with the topic of abortion. It sounds more like a public health promotion slogan. Still not seeing what it has to do with the topic of abortion. BTW, "code blue" is not heart failure. It is cardiac arrest. Heart failure is a different medical condition, which can lead to cardiac arrest if untreated.
But your "Logical"....just like unfeeling spock ….right ?
Kill the heart.....Kill Life.
It's that simple !
To be fair (if that's what you are)....if one heart pumping is important.....ALL hearts pumping ARE important !
Were you laughing when you posted that ?
Which month is that ?
It certainly is. The six week heartbeat isn't actually a heartbeat. Please read what Tessylo posted so people can actually converse with you about it from a factual standpoint. Anti-choice people get so emotional that they often choose to overlook facts.
It is hard to converse with some fundamentalists who can't grasp the fact that a heartbeat in a zygote makes no difference in regards to the law and the rights of its host. It does not indicate brain activity, it does not somehow grant human rights just because blood is being pumped throughout a kidney bean sized zygote by a tiny sand particle sized heart.
No kidding.
Apparently….only certain "Life" pumpers are worthy to keep on ticking.
Warning
"A perfectly healthy embryo may not show a heartbeat at seven weeks if it measures less than 5 mm from crown to rump. Other reasons for inability to detect a heartbeat include tipped uterus, large abdomen and miscalculation of the date of the last menstrual period."
So....what excuse is used when a baby hits ….ooooh ….. say 2 months ?
I'm not denying any of the links you provide, I'm saying what difference does any of that make? What difference does it make whether the zygote has a heart, heartbeat, ear, toe, toenail, backbone, eyeball, or even brain when it comes to the law and the privacy decision made by the supreme court? None of that makes any difference, the only thing that the law defines is viability and of course a fetus would have to have a heart and brain and everything else to be considered able to live outside the womb without the aid of the mother.
This whole "heartbeat" nonsense is just more anti-choice smokescreen thrown up to get religious conservatives to base their opinion on an emotional appeal. Anyone with any sense can see right through it.
Thank you.
That can also apply to any vital organ too.
Except "life" isn't really the issue with abortion. That's just an emotional appeal by anti-choicers.
All vital organs are important, as an organism won't live long without them or if they are defective. A fetal heart isn't capable of sustaining a fetal "life" until the point of viability. In early stages of gestation, there isn't even a functioning "heart." The heart first forms from cardiac cells that depolarized and produce the "beat." But individual cells do not an organ make.
2 month post birth or 2 months gestation?
It would seem according to those supporting abortion, some human heartbeats must be terminated with extreme prejudice.
It would seem you don't know what you're talking about.
I wonder if they have a box that can be checked which notes - Reason for Abortion.
Who cares what the reason is? That's only the woman's business.
Not if it's tax payer funded !
You want to play…. YOU pay to play. If not, it's not a private matter anymore.
Fortunately , abortions are not taxpayer funded, with notable exceptions.
Why do you get to pick which healthcare is covered and not covered if you ain't a doctor? And that would include politicians. And ABORTIONS AREN'T PAID BY YOUR TAX DOLLARS. Fuckers don't stay out of our business even if tax $$ aren't part of the damn equation. Butt the hell out.
I'm probably set up to get a lot of tickets today it this keeps up.
I didn't say they all were ….. Did I ?
The word Exceptions....makes the word NOT …… Null and Void !
With most insurance policies doctors do not determine coverage for an insurance policy, and most health insurance policies do not cover elective procedures like an abortion (unless there is a medical issue). You can purchase riders, but they add to the cost so most people don't want them. Probably cost more than the abortion procedure itself.
No, it means there are legitimate medical reasons for abortions. Tax money doesn't go towards elective abortions. Big difference.
I don't care if democrats want to change it. It hasn't happened yet and it's not likely to be changed. So everything is status quo.
They choose not to understand this simple point. That's why the truth never gets through to them.
Are You in the Country wide "records" keeping department ?
"Tax money doesn't go towards elective abortions."
You would bet everything you have on that ?
Why do you imagine differently? What evidence do you have that taxes are being spent on elective abortions? Or is it that conservative "gut" informing you?
4 Ways Planned Parenthood Has Billed Taxpayers For Elective Abortions
I n her testimony before Congress, Planned Parenthood CEP Cecile Richards repeatedly insisted that federal law already prohibits Planned Parenthood from using tax dollars for abortions. The Hyde Amendment does prohibit Planned Parenthood from billing federal taxpayers for any abortion except those for rape or incest, or that are necessary to save the mother’s life. These exceptions are so exceedingly rare that states will report only a handful of those Medicaid-paid abortions annually—if any at all.
But it is also undeniably true that taxpayer dollars have been and are paid to Planned Parenthood for abortions and to subsidize abortions. Since money is fungible, when Planned Parenthood is receiving over a half billion dollars annually—well over $127 million of that “excess revenue”—taxpayers are effectively freeing up other funds to pay for Planned Parenthood’s abortion business. Other than Planned Parenthood pledges, we have no evidence that taxpayer dollars aren’t keeping the lights on and running the water in the abortion room.
ht
And so on and so on .
Now I'm SURE ….. You have some type of other evidence that proves otherwise.
Democrats are pushing for third term abortions on demand and to abolish the Hyde Amendment so taxpayers pay for someone's elective procedure.
Very scary stuff...they have gone bunkers.
That's right, it hasn't changed. Get back to me when it is changed! Until then, your complaint is meaningless.
The Hyde Amendment prohibits tax money going towards elective abortions. Plain and simple.
I see you're buying into erroneous conservative talking points.
Really? Can you dispute that comment?
I see you have no valid rebuttal. Youre just complaining about nothing. And I didn't even mention Trump. But nice smokescreen. It's a tactic of a failed argument.
You didn't read the articles did you. Skirting the so-called Uber important Hyde amendment is easy !
Just like Tax Laws are easy to skirt if one knows what they are doing!
Yes, no one is advocating or allowing elective 3rd trimester abortions. The restrictions on such abortions are still in effect. And there's no serious challenge or threat to the Hyde Amendment.
Ah yes, the old "fungible" bullshit argument. If that's true, then guess what? Everyone who has ever donated to a Baptist Church, the Catholic Church or any Protestant denomination is supporting the rape of children. That "fungible" money was spent defending pedophile priests, spent paying off victims and their families. So apparently YOU (if you've ever donated to a Church) are condoning raping kids in the same way anyone who supports funding Planned Parenthood for all the good work they do, cancer screening, health checkups for low income men and women, are condoning or supporting abortion. Sure Churches do good things with those donations, but they also spend it on their own rape victims, and with money being as "fungible" as you claim, whose to say it wasn't your dollar that got paid like an after-the-fact prostitution payment to a family for the sexual services of their child by a priest or pastor?
I see You have a "Church" fetish.
Now how 'bouts that "Abortion" and "Taxes" thingy.
Anything ?
Just your uniformed rhetoric....you didn't dispute a thing.
Democrats are pushing for exactly what was said in the comment.
[delete]
You argue the "fungibility" of money, the concept that if you give money to a group for a specific thing, like donate to a Church to support their soup kitchen for the homeless, that money doesn't just go to the homeless but also to pay the attorneys to defend pedophile priests. With a Churches tax exempt status, they get all the benefits my tax dollars provide, roads, sewer, water, power infrastructure, fire departments and police departments, but they pay nothing so in a way we are all paying their share of these expenses.
With the concept of fungibility, we are all paying for the Mosques, Churches and synagogues to defend their priests, pastors, imam's and rabbi's when they are caught abusing and raping children. Of course, that's rather silly and no one really blames anyone donating to a Church or paying their share of taxes because no one really views fungibility that way. The same should be true for Planned Parenthood who is merely reimbursed for many health services they provide, but some folk apparently don't mind being monumental hypocrites by claiming fungibility applies here, but not in their own church.
Where are Democrats advocating for elective 3rd trimester abortions?
Your a bad teacher. I hope they haven't "Given" you tenure !
Now ….. AGAIN ….. how 'bout's that "Abortion" and "Taxes" thing.
I just can't find anything specific about "Churches" in the article.
Are you adlibbing again ?
So what? It's not going to change anything. Nothe likely it'll happen anytime soon.
Logic clearly seems to elude you.
So you're only assuming money i's going towards elective abortion's then! Pardon me if that means absolutely nothing to me.
Please note where I "assumed" anything like that !
You're the one mentioning skirting tax laws, implying that is what is occurring with regards to abortion funding. If that is not occurring, then money is not going toward elective abortions. My mistake then.
[deleted]
Did you read the articles I "Gave" you ?
"If that is not occurring"
You really don't know ?
Probably because of the current republican attack on women's reproductive health and rights that is being carried out by a bunch of ignorant old MEN who want to slut shame and control women to keep some fragile hold on their waning manhood. Time to shut this all down and get all society out of our uteri. Its REALLY not your collective business and they should have stopped at the Hyde Amendment if they cared about that. Now the war is on. We are going for broke. Enjoy the ride. The younger generations aren't having this bullshit.
Should be a normal part of women's reproductive healthcare. Not your business in ANY way. Nobody forces you to pay nor have one. Some women CAN'T afford them, and guess what? YOU STILL DON'T PAY.
Nothing to do with you or society any more than your diabetes or high blood pressure. Although society does NOT pay for elective abortions.
My mistake. That was supposed to be in response to Sunshine's claim.
[deleted]
I guess having a rational discussion is impossible so I will no longer bother. You're obviously not going change your views and are intentionally being obtuse in response so I see no point in continuing. [deleted]
Rational people don't go off on some other subject.
Is that "Logical"
to you ?
Logic tells you …… Nothing is going on ?
No, you did not...
Exactly. Well put.
It’s changing in New York State.
Good! I That is NY's prerogative! It's a response to the draconian anti-abortion laws some states try to pass.
After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.
.
In Job 33:4, it states: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”
.
In Exodus 21:22 it states that if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death. It should be apparent from this that the aborted fetus is not considered a living human being since the resulting punishment for the abortion is nothing more than a fine; it is not classified by the bible as a capital offense.
Curious, and what do you call forcing women to have kids? Sounds a LOT like slavery to me!
Yep, some want to make women a slave to their fetus. Slavery is the proper term to use when you forcibly take away or deny someone their established rights.
Being terminated for merely existing is as bad as slavery. For the poor child it’s actually worse.
There is no child in an abortion. And being forced to carry one against one''s will is Handmaid's level messed up.
Being prohibited from removing something that is inside of you and affecting what you can do, that you do not want is slavery
Except there is no child yet. Make believe is all you have
More wars!!!!!! YES!
More gun violence and more guns!!!! YES!!!!!!
More abortions!!!!! No, I am pro life.
Your argument literally makes no sense.
Who is being forced to get pregnant?
getting pregnant is not the problem, being forced to remain that way when they don't want to is
It shouldn't be, but this notion the someone is being forced sort of implies that people are getting pregnant against their will. That, in turn, implies they had sex against their will. That surely is not the situation in all cases. Of course contraception fails, but that danger exists and is - or should be - well known.
The idea is that once a woman is pregnant, her circumstances have changed and she now holds power over another life. You can say remaining pregnant is some kind of slavery or you can say it's a responsibility.
It's the only context in which we allow a person to end some other human life. For some, the only way to justify it is to make the claim that no such human life exists.
If someone gets pregnant, they have the choice to continue the pregnancy or not. Forcibly removing that choice and forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will is essentially enslaving her to the pregnancy/fetus.
Women are. Especially catholics and other other religious sects
Guessing you missed HA's other article about religious freedom and not supporting contraception? So there is your answer.
Well said.
In that context, I agree. The religious prohibitions on contraception are absurd.
So you want to legislate "thoughts" now? SO much for that more personal freedoms garbage.
And what do you call making a legal medical procedure almost literally, illegal? A systemic denial of a basic right to an entire group of people?
Yep.
Conservatism can only thrive when the society relinquishes it's freedoms to those who stoke fear, division and avarice.
Equating a decision to have a child with a decision to own a slave is...……...bizarre and reeks of not so subtle Russian propaganda.
This debate concerning 'Choice' for the ''Non Choicers' is a movement to create a permanent subservient sub class in American society, not so different from 'the status class' in rigid theocratic governance such as some of those in the Islamic world.
That's because a fetus has no rights, according to the SCOTUS.
Actually in several states a person who kills a pregnant woman intending to carry to term her live baby and the baby dies too, the murderer can be charged with two counts of murder. The state of New York reversed such a law.
Yea, it's that whole choice thing. Would the fetus been carried to term had the mother not been shot and killed? Yes. She was not given a choice, get it? "Choice", that thing the cons want to take away from women.
That's not a guarantee. It's dependent on individual state laws, the stage of gestation, the circumstances surrounding the death in question, and whether a prosecutor decides to pursue such a charge.
Good! Fetal homicide laws are clearly emotionally driven!
That's because there is no such thing as an, "unborn baby". Just more appeal to emotions. Pretty sick.
Are you really that surprised? Appeals to emotion is pretty much the only argument anti-choicers have against abortion. They certainly can't make any logical or rational arguments. I suppose that's why they've repeatedly lost on the issue when it went before the courts.
Except 'the courts' are being changed. Quickly. McConnell is pushing them through as fast as he can.
It is very possible that judicially, DJT will be the most influential president since FDR.
Not in the least. LOL
Or religious arguments for that matter. Even their own bible says life doesn't begin at conception.
Indeed. It's EXTREMELY rare that the SCOTUS will reverse a previous decision. Of course it can happen, but I don't see abortion being made illegal via the SCOTUS.
I disagree. Roe v Wade will be a states rights issue. Wait for it. SCOTUS needs one more Trumpian judge. Wait for it.
Especially since there are multiple SCOTUS rulings which have affirmed and expanded on abortion.
It already was, and to a lesser degree still is. Clearly that didn't go well, as states tend to not be very rational when it comes to such issues.
And that is a very good thing for America.
Taking away people's rights is hardly a good thing.
So it's ok with you if the 2nd is taken away
Just remember, McConnell said that a justice cannot be confirmed in an election year.
Bingo. Smacks of fascism.
Do you not think he should be held to the same standards he set forth 4 years ago? Should he get a pass only when it fits his agenda?
I was going to say the same thing. Some probably think the government legislating women's personal health care choices is not fascism, But if the government legislates something that they disapprove of, suddenly it's fascism.
I agree that there should be no confirmations in an election year.
‘Oh, we’d fill it.’
The link in the article is quite clear about the early Christians opposition to abortion, child abandonment, and infanticide. .
Yeah well, they also opposed shellfish and a bunch of other stuff too. Hell, they even opposed each other. Your point?
So what is in the bible is only valid if it fits a political agenda? Seems totally legit. /s
So, to clarify, do you believe there is any point during a pregnancy when it would be wrong to abort? Would 39 weeks be ok?
I am not in favor of abortions past the point of viability and then, it would need to be a truly extreme case.
Because it can survive on it's own? Do you not know what "viability" means? Wow. Let me help.
Only 1.3 % of pregnancies are terminated after 21 weeks.
Nope.
it shouldn't.
Medical science has determined viability is approximately 23-24 weeks gestation.
And? Does that mean we should or should not care about them at all?
No it means that most abortions performed after 21 weeks are for extreme reasons, like health of the mother or fetal deformities.
The better question is, how is it any of your business?
Yes, but that is the extreme. The chances of survival at that stage aren't even 50/50. It's more like 30%. And it's not like they go home right away. The ones that do, don't leave the NICU for months and face an increased chance of physical and/or mental defects. In this context, "viability" means only that doctors have a better than zero chance of keeping a baby alive. That seems like a generous definition of "viable."
It seems reasonable that at some point in the future, though, medical science will find ways to extend that viability line back to 22 weeks, 21 weeks, and so on. Maybe 23 weeks shouldn't be the line we draw.
One of these days, some smart person will figure out how to design an artificial womb. What will that do what constitutes concepts of "a human life?"
Should the lines we draw in this regard really be based on what a doctor can pull off if everything goes right?
Actually, considering the intent of this forum, that's the most useless question I can think of. I could just as easily ask how is this any of your business?
That's rhetorical, though. Until Perrie says otherwise, everyone here has the same right to explore a topic as anyone else. You don't get to police that, Gordy.
I guess what I'm trying to point out is you just keep stating a statistic. It would be more useful if you explained why you thought that was important - particularly why you think it's important to me since you addressed it to me.
You and others were discussing the timing (in terms of weeks) of abortions. That's why I thought it was pertinent to the thread.
Right, but if you think an abortion is wrong at [insert number of] weeks, wouldn't it be wrong whether 98% of abortions were performed then or 2%? Any crime, for example, is still a crime even if it happens infrequently.
I didn't say anything about right or wrong.
Abortion is not a crime but I do happen to think its wrong after 20 weeks (except for extreme cases). Its still a decision for the woman and her physician not me or you or anyone else.
From a legal standpoint, yes.
From a legal standpoint, no.
Somehow, I think you already know that. So what's the point to your line of questioning.
It shouldn't. But lawmakers seem to make a big deal about it. Perhaps you should ask them.
Do you have a point?
Current medical science maintains viability at approximately 23-24 weeks. Future what-ifs is just speculation. It's probable that future medical advancement may only increase the survival rate of those born at viability.
Let me know when that happens.
Currently, yes!
So why don't you answer it!
Answer; it's not! But then, I'm not trying to legislate or actively limit or remove a woman's rights. Neither am I telling anyone what they can/should do or not regarding their health choices. I have no say (nor should I) in such matters and neither does anyone else, except the woman in question!
I never said you couldn't discuss something. I see you missed the point! People, especially politicians, go on about abortion. But the question remains, how is it anyone else's business what a woman chooses to do regarding her pregnancy?
I agree. I also find it sometimes hypocritical.
Yes. Have a standard that makes some kind of sense. We're arguably not even using the word "viable" correctly and that word is somehow the standard. That makes it a hard thing to base policy on whether you think it's too early or too late.
And when I do, will that change your concepts of right and wrong? Are those concepts so flexible?
Because it doesn't deserve an answer. You're unclear on how this works, I guess.
Neither am I, but you think you have the authority to question my right to speak on a topic.
Demanding that I justify my right to speak is doing exactly that. Stop asking me how it's any of my business and we won't have a problem.
I don't honestly believe you don't know the answer to this. The objection to abortion is not about a woman's personal choices. It's about the impact it has on a developing human being. If you want to believe there is no human being growing in a pregnant woman, that's your choice, but other people feel differently and that's the root of their objection. They feel they are intervening to save an innocent life. For them, it's no different than laws that require a parent to feed their children, prohibit beating them to death, and so on.
It's not about preventing someone from making routine personal choices. Every time you go down that road, you are dishonestly representing the opposing argument.
You do understand what viability is, right?
What does right or wrong have to do with anything?
Speak for yourself! It works like this: A question is asked, then an answer is provided. Since you have yet to provide an answer, I can only assume you're either deflecting or have no answer. Which is it?
I never said you couldn't speak about a topic. But just because you speak about something doesn't mean what you say will be free from scrutiny or challenge.
Humor me then.
The woman's choices are paramount.
People can have their beliefs. But personal beliefs should not be pushed onto others or made into public policy. If a woman believes a fetus is not yet human, who are you to tell her otherwise?
That's just sanctimonious arrogance. It's not their body, it's not their fetus, it's not their life, and it's not their buisiness! And yes, it's totally different, even if they don't want to see it that way.
Women might make personal choices. But restrictive abortion laws purposely prevent women from either making a choice and/or restrict her options. Such laws effectively state that once a woman is pregnant, she has no choice but to continue a pregnancy, even if she chooses otherwise!
In your opinion. Other people have a different opinion. You keep seeming to insist that your opinions are the only possible logical conclusion and everyone who disagrees with you is delusional. Ironically, you call others "sanctimonious" and "arrogant."
Circumstances can change affecting whose choices are paramount. That is true of many situations.
Some would say that the belief that "choice is paramount" is being pushed onto someone else and ending a life. That's a pretty severe tradeoff.
Imagine all the ways that philosophy could be implemented horribly. Imagine if someone thinks other people are not human because their skin is dark. Or they're female. Or they are missing a limb. Or they have brain damage. You can literally justify anything and defend it because it's their belief.
Yeah, so? Any law does that. If you had unrestricted choice to do anything, that would literally be a lawless situation. The whole point of needing laws is that people don't do things by choice that the rest of us want them to do.
I've made no such insistence. My "opinions" do not deprive nor seek to deprive individuals of their rights. They are also based on legal precedent.
Women's choices have been paramount for decades, despite attempts to change that.
Belief is just belief, nothing more. Choice is paramount because of individual autonomy and the law!
Spare me the hyperbole. The flip side of that is dehumanizing or devaluing the woman in question. Same difference.
And such laws are also unconstitutional and unduly deprive an individual of their established rights.
There are already laws in place with restrictions. Some now want to go to extreme ends of the law, such as we see with states attempting to severely restrict or outright prohibit abortion.
her pregnancy, not anybody else's
One point I haven't seen articulated here in regards to the 1.3% of abortions that occur after viability is the fairly obvious fact that virtually none of those 1.3% of women want an abortion, that's why they carried the fetus to viability. It's five plus months of pregnancy and nearly every woman with an unwanted pregnancy will terminate that pregnancy long before viability.
So that leaves the 1.3% who nearly all are preparing to be mothers, wanting to bring a child into the world, but are then hit with one of the biggest decision they'll have to make in their lives when the doctor tells them their life or health is at risk if they attempt to give birth or the fetus is deformed or a stillbirth. The religious conservatives want to take away that woman's choice and make it for her, to simply force the woman to carry a stillbirth to full term or force her to risk her life and possibly die giving birth bringing a child into a world with no mother. They also may be taking away someone's wife and perhaps mother of other children, all to appease some anonymous religious conservatives conscience who wrongly imagine it's any of their business.
It really is incredibly ignorant to try and use the 1.3% to vilify the 98.7% of terminations before viability which are elective. And that's why there is no "crime", because the 98.7% occur before viability and the 1.3% are only allowed due to special circumstances. Most religious conservatives support the death penalty which is killing a fully born, raised, possibly educated human because of "special circumstances", that being the fact that the convicted committed a heinous crime, perhaps they killed a new mother. Well that's nearly the same special circumstance that would allow the termination of a pregnancy after viability accept it's to save the life of the mother instead of just punishing the one who took her life after the fact.
You're never going to see me say that a woman should be compelled to die or put her life at serious risk to continue a pregnancy. Very few people are going to suggest that.
I personally am not doing that. If you think that is my intent, you are mistaken.
Deformities are a different conversation. Many individual cases of severe deformity will lead to obvious decisions. However, we can't ignore the slippery slope. Aborting a fetus with half a brain is maybe not such a tough choice. What about merely missing a limb? What about down syndrome? What if it just carries a gene for diabetes? Many imperfect people lead long, happy, and productive lives. Where is the line separating mercy from eugenics?
I'm not demanding you or anyone else answer all these questions. I just think it's a conversation we (society) should be able to have without screaming at each other.
I've seen and heard many religious conservatives who refuse to accept any abortion even when its to save the life of the mother.
I don't want to "ignore" it, I think it should be carefully considered. But taking away the choice from the doctor and the woman and putting it in religious conservatives hands is not the way to keep from slipping. That slippery slope is just as dangerous, where religious conservatives could argue they should have rights over the "unborn babies" among the limits eggs women have thus turning us into the Handmaids Tale.
PJ Media is a far right wing site with mixed factual reporting.
And yet despite the attack on the source, this article made the cut of featured articles today on Real Clear Politics. Unlike the bigot source you refer to, Real Clear Politics can distinguish the quality of an individual article and not stigmatize it because they have some bogus imagined dislike of the site it came from.
You do realize they also call out far left wing sites as well, yes?
As a fig leaf to hide their obvious hate filled bigoted biases. That so called self appointed site run by arrogant asses rates 11 conservative sites as questionable or propaganda for every liberal site so labeled. Your source is clearly and obvious for all to see an anti Trump, anti conservative, anti Christian site. It is a shill for a point of view and for the msm. It is of no redeeming value and is worthy of nothing but sheer and utter contempt.
Gee, it would never occur to you that's because more conservative sites are questionable or propaganda - because that would require accepting actual facts.
If I have to tell one more member of the christian taliban to mind their own business I don't think I can do it in a nice way. But I'll try.
Forcing women to adhere to your personal beliefs is the form of slavery no matter how many times you try to claim the opposite. You want a clump of cells to have more rights than the woman who is a living breathing human being. Butt the hell out of our business.
" Early Christianity forbade the killing of an unborn baby in the womb"
what does early Christianity have to do with the rights of an American woman in 2019?
It's about the argument as to whether or not the Christian concern over abortion is recent or ancient. The link goes here . I think trying to argue that it is specifically a Christian teaching is a very long reach, but I wouldn't be surprised if culturally, it was disapproved of in ancient times.
It was by Christianity. The pagan cultures all around allowed abortion by potion, child abandonment after birth and outright infanticide.
Republican/conservatives want women to be SLAVES to their uterus.
My mom did not consider herself a slave to either her uterus or to any of her three children. It’s not slavery to not be able to terminate the life of ones child.
If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave.
Get an abortion, then one is no longer a slave to a fetus. Problem solved.
Excellent point, given that slavery is illegal, we can conclude that forcing women to carry a fetus to term is....slavery.
Can it be proved a fetus knows anything?
It can do nothing an actual human can do. Up to and including breathing air, walking, talking, voting, riding a bike, picking a booger, drive a car, etc..
And yet we were all at that stage of development at one point and here we are now, the winners of the lottery of life, survivors of our own mother’s and spared of the abortuary
we also did not get run over by a truck or get some disease so we were lottery winners
So?
And we were all sperm at that stage of development "at one point" and here we are now, shall we ban masturbation? My sperm was the winner in the lottery of life, should we consider every sperm sacred and start monitoring every boy going through puberty so they don't become mass murderers in the eyes of religious conservatives?
You were never sperm. That sperm was your father. Your unique DNA was created as a new thing when father's sperm melded with mother's egg. So, no, every sperm is not sacred. But what it creates might be.
Another classic.
It's not likely they know anything since neurological development is not complete nor are they born with intrinsic knowledge of anything.
And it seems to appear that there are some who never learn anything no matter how old they get.
Can't resist the ad hom attack, eh?
Denial of choice depends on dehumanization of the pregnant woman. She is reduced to an incubator without autonomy.
Like Axlotl tanks from Dune
I've never read the books, so I had to look that up. Scary stuff.
and denial of life depends on dehumanizing the fetus so it can be killed without guilt.
zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, teenager, adult, and the old fuk are all part of the human life cycle.
ending that life cycle is ending life.
We don't require anybody, even the dead, to donate organs or tissues to critically ill adults, teenagers, children, or infants. You would give a corpse more rights than a living woman.
never said anyone alive or dead had to donate anything to anyone. LOL
all I said was from zygote to old fuk all are part of "the human life cycle" and that is simple fact.
obviously, a corpse is no longer part of the "human life cycle"
if you had read the link I provided? you would have already known that.
reading is your friend...
try reading that first, it will help with your confusion about what you think I said.
cheers
You're supporting taking away a living woman's right to control the use of her own organs, to support a fetus. We don't harvest the hearts of even those who have been declared brain dead without their prior consent, or their family's, if they're minors. People in need of hearts, kidneys, and livers die frequently, but we don't rob corpses to keep them alive.
Again, you'd give a corpse more rights than a living woman.
Also, I'm well aware of the human life cycle. That actually isn't my point. My point is autonomy. Bodily autonomy is a human right. One human's rights do not supersede another's. Denying a woman bodily autonomy puts the rights of the fetus over the mother's, and dehumanizes her.
If we wouldn't force any other human, alive or dead, to donate organs to save a life, then we shouldn't force women to serve as unwilling incubators.
Exactly. Right on and well written.
So, you're for forced organ donation, then? Human lives are as dependent on your spare kidney as they are on a pregnant woman's uterus?
Oh, and you'll foot the bill for surrendering your kidney, yes? Same as you'd expect a pregnant woman to pay for her own medical care after you've made her decisions for her?
Or do you want government to force one group of citizens to render over the use of their bodies against their will, but not another group, specifically, the group to which you belong?
And they think women will buy this patronizing, condescending attempt to control women's reproduction. A bunch of men who have no idea about female physiology want to force their christian sharia law on us, with no regard for maternal, fetal or child health. The states who want the most control have the worst death rate, so basically they would be guilty of homicide when women are forced to bear children they shouldn't. Can you tell they younger generations aren't buying that bullcrap? Warms my heart.
I never ever anywhere even remotely suggested that I favor forced organ donation. Quit making stuff up. I am a voluntary donor of as many organs as can viably be given away to another upon my demise. A developing human baby is not the organ of another person.
You want to force women to allow the use of their organs - uterus, respiratory system, circulatory system, digestive system, etc. to support a fetus, whether they wish to or not, and while they're still alive to consent or withhold consent. That's forced organ donation, even if on a temporary basis. You would only enforce that on women, though.
Kudos to you. A key word here is "voluntary".
We're talking about living women here whose organs you would use against their will.
I never said it was. It's using the organs of another person.