"Does it solve the problem for the woman that's been raped?"

Um.. yes?

That Brownback's a classy guy.

COSMIC. I posted about this on my other forum yesterday and one friend was so incensed, she sent Mr. Brownback an outraged email. The ace thing is that my friend is an English woman in London, so this twat's words, thankfully, do not affect the laws she's under in the UK!

innocent fetus life > innocent female life

Brownback seriously brings out some violent tendencies in me.

Better the lunatics in the GOP be honest about their disdain for women as forced child-vessels, rather than using rape and incest as a fig leaf for being 99.9% anti-choice.

"woman that's"

Shouldn't that be "woman who's"?

Shows once again, that we are simply objects, not people.

It's nice to know that he cares so much about women. If one of his daughters was raped by a 'godless liberal' (sarcasm), do you think he'd still view women as objects? HOW his wife stays married to him, I have no idea...

And supposedly he got a standing ovation... from a room full of Catholic men. Who better to make abortion policy decisions? Riiiiight.

What about the fucking innocent woman who got raped, G-DAMMIT?!

I think Brownback is wrong, period, in his stand that abortion should be illegal. But I'm not sure that I think his stand is made more (or less) reprehensible because he thinks that a fetus resulting from rape is of equal value to a fetus resulting from consensual sexual activity.

In a sense, I actually agree with him (horrors!). I think women who have been raped, and women who become pregnant from consensual sexual activity, should have equal access to abortion and all other aspects of reproductive health. Abortion policy should be about what we believe about the nature of pregnancy, not what we believe about the nature or morality of a woman's sexuality and sexual history.

I agree with anna: if a politician takes the less popular stance that there should be no rape/incest exceptions, i am more inclined to believe that he is part of the pro-life cause because he actually believes life begins at conception. I don't agree with this position, but I find this view much less offensive than one that seems to care much more about punishing woman for their behavior.

This makes me wonder if Brownback & oenephile are the same person.

While I strongly disagree with Brownback's stance, I agree with the commenters who appreciate it as being more consistent than a "pro-life" stance that makes exceptions for rape and incest survivors.

Generally agreed with creeps and anna in that I find the position ideologically more palatable.

But as policy, definitely worse.

At least he's consistent?

It's things like this that make dual citizenship seem even more attractive than usual.

(US and some decent country, where they outgrew this uterine federalisation bullshit decades ago)

And what exactly does Sam Brownback (lovely surname, by the way) know about what does and doesn't solve the problems of rape victims?

Some guys force themselves on women on a retail basis, and get caught. Some guys are a bit smarter about it, and try to force themselves on millions of women at once through the legislative and judicial processes.

And why exactly have we let them call themselves "pro-life"? Their commitment to life is at best selective ("anyone but a woman or a doctor" being the usual selection).

The only way these people are "pro-life" is if life begins at fertilisation and ends at birth. Most of them have no problem with the death penalty, or with the 650,000-odd Iraqis murdered thus far by the occupation (maybe someone should have told them that there are foetuses in Iraq, too, but I'm sure they'd just be "intrauterine enemy combatants".

The only thing these "right to lifers" are really fighting for is their right to control women's lives. There needs to be a name for them that accurately describes them, and "pro life"/"right to life"/etc. etc. etc. ain't that.

Personally, I've taken to calling them "the rape lobby", since one thing they do all tend to share is a desire to force themselves on/into women on a wholesale basis.

While more dire if put into practice, I agree that the Brownback stance is more honest, as far as “protecting life� versus merely controlling/punishing women.

I have found through numerous discussions and panel sessions for a short film I made about the South Dakota ban that when you are able to speak to a pro-lifer for just 5 minutes and explain the controlling/punishing nature of bans-with-exceptions versus total bans, you can actually make headway.

I’ve watched people’s mouths just hang open when I ask “why do you think its okay for a rape victim to ‘murder her unborn baby’ but not a woman who became pregnant through consensual sex?�

It’s the question pro-lifers hate the most because there is absolutely no good answer to it in the context of the “it’s a person� argument.

It forces someone either to get into Brownback’s camp or to acknowledge that they aren’t really so sure that abortion = murder. And far, far fewer people are willing to get into Brownback’s camp with the prospect that they, or their daughter, or their wife, would be forced to carry a rapist’s baby.

There's nothing remotely honest about the Brownback stance. It's completely hypocritical, given his record. The only time he has ever been interested in protecting "life" is when it's being protected from the person whose body it occupies.

Otherwise, as with quite a few "pro-lifers", life is pretty cheap for Brownback.

Why not let the rapist go free and make everyone happy? *eye roll*

Well if Brownback wanted to really get Biblical, he'd make rapists marry their victims and pay their dads dowry.

Sadly, he's not too far off from that position as it is.

Good point FEMily. I mean, jailing the rapist doesn't fix the woman's problem!!

:vomit:

Well, let's be honest. Pro-choicers throw a fit when pro-lifers want rape exceptions, because they say that restricting abortion is punishing women for having "Teh Sex."

Then you throw a BIGGER fit when someone takes an intellectually consistent position.

(FYI: I think there is an intellectually consistent position for allowing rape exceptions - basically, stating that as a matter of law, the rape tips the balance of rights in favour of the woman. After all, there is a balancing of rights - it is not as if either the woman or the fetus is without any legal recourse. One need not be less valuable for the other's rights to occasionally trump.)

Love the comment, micheyd!

as a catholic i am against abortion in any form. yet as a woman i feel i and any other woman for that matter should have the right to do what they please with their body. but i dont believe sen. brownback was stating that the womans life is any less precious than that of an unborn child. and although the woman did not ask (in this case she was raped) or did (by having consentual sex) to bear a child, shouldnt she give thought into the person this child may become even under horrible circumstances that may have created him/her?

Oenophile, who do you mean by "you"? There are several commenters, myself included*, that think the intellectually consistent position is preferable. Maybe other commenters think having exceptions is preferable. It's not like there is a universal feminist position.

The exceptions are still untenable in your example as a political position. Deciding that rape tips the scales seems a rather arbitrary personal opinion. Because why, rape's ickier? What if it was the frequently gray area of date rape? At what point is the situation bad enough to weigh more heavily than the murder of a purportedly innocent human life?

*At least I thought I commented but it seems to have been eaten. I'd much rather see Brownback make the hard-line no exceptions argument because it's more honest, and the execution of exceptions would be terribly subjective. I'd rather fence-sitters and moderates face their decisions than be wooed by purely theoretical compassion.

as a catholic i am against abortion in any form. yet as a woman i feel i and any other woman for that matter should have the right to do what they please with their body. but i dont believe sen. brownback was stating that the womans life is any less precious than that of an unborn child. and although the woman did not ask (in this case she was raped) or did (by having consentual sex) to bear a child, shouldnt she give thought into the person this child may become even under horrible circumstances that may have created him/her?
and either way, how is getting rid of the child solved the problem that she was raped? in the end she was still raped....

as a catholic i am against abortion in any form. yet as a woman i feel i and any other woman for that matter should have the right to do what they please with their body. but i dont believe sen. brownback was stating that the womans life is any less precious than that of an unborn child. and although the woman did not ask (in this case she was raped) or did (by having consentual sex) to bear a child, shouldnt she give thought into the person this child may become even under horrible circumstances that may have created him/her?
and either way, how is getting rid of the child solved the problem that she was raped? in the end she was still raped....

Frankly, I don't think Brownback is consistently pro-life at all, as Elise pointed out. And that is what I find amazing, that so many "pro lifers" will support the death penalty, will support a war that is killing women and children in the middle east, and will support a president who gives doctors the right to remove babies from life support after 10 days without parental consent. One just has to look at the execution record in Texas and the casualties in Iraq to see just how "pro-life" our president and his supporters are.

Furthermore, to answer oenophile, I can disagree with the man's position even if it's consistent. I have no problem with the man being opposed to abortion even in the case of rape, I have a problem with him putting his personal beliefs into legislation that will affect millions of people who are not him.

Generally agreed with creeps and anna in that I find the position ideologically more palatable.

But as policy, definitely worse.

True. Excepting, of course, that it helps illustrate how offensive the pro-life position is.

Well, let's be honest. Pro-choicers throw a fit when pro-lifers want rape exceptions, because they say that restricting abortion is punishing women for having "Teh Sex."

Then you throw a BIGGER fit when someone takes an intellectually consistent position.

I know this is complicated, but bear with me:

Logically consistent position != correct position

Just because someone takes a logically consistent position does not mean that they've taken the right position.

In this case, it just means that I'm more likely to believe him when he says that he's pro-life. It doesn't mean that I'm going to suddenly think that his position is the right one.

So oenophile, women who've been impregnated by their rapist deserve more rights than the rest of us?

Genny wrote:
And that is what I find amazing, that so many "pro lifers" will support the death penalty...and will support a president who gives doctors the right to remove babies from life support after 10 days without parental consent.

FYI, Senator Brownback is not in favor of the death penalty except in rare cases where the public at large still cannot be protected from the criminal, even if the criminal is doing a life sentence. This would be the case for people like Osama bin Ladin and other people who have large, dangerous networks. Also, Senator Brownback is AGAINST the policy that allows doctors in Texas to remove life-support from children against their parents' wishes.

What can I say? I am one female college student who will totally be voting for him. He is one politician who isn't pro-life for political gain, but because he genuinely belives in the inherent dignity of all human life and has made this a CENTRAL priority of his time in the House and in the Senate, not just a politically convenient after-thought to keep the public happy.

how is getting rid of the child solved the problem that she was raped? in the end she was still raped...

It DOESN'T solve THAT problem. It solves the problem of her being pregnant by her rapist.

Right, well, if the rapist breaks my arm in the process of raping me, what's the point of setting it? In the end, I'll still have been raped.

His position on choice notwithstanding, Brownback is a grade-A crazy. Did anyone else read the Rolling Stone article on him?

What about the guys who masturbate. Theres thousands of innocent children killed in a session of male masturbation!

What about the guys who masturbate. Theres thousands of innocent children killed in a session of male masturbation!

"If one of his daughters was raped by a 'godless liberal' (sarcasm), do you think he'd still view women as objects?"

Some men who view women as objects actually pay other men to rape their daughters (and eventually impregnate them once the daughters reach puberty), so I wouldn't be surprised.

"I’ve watched people’s mouths just hang open when I ask 'why do you think its okay for a rape victim to ‘murder her unborn baby’ but not a woman who became pregnant through consensual sex?'"

Ever asked 'why do you think its okay for a rape victim to ‘murder her unborn baby’ but not a woman who became pregnant through marital sex?'? Some of these idiots seem to think unplanned pregnancies only happen after singletons have one-night stands.

Mina:

...and they'll be pleased to bits when they see Knocked Up. "Slutty," independent woman keeps the baby.
I wonder how many anti-choicers creamed their pants during the scene where she's crying after the ultrasound.

I blogged about the Texas futile-care law. Being too lazy to repeat myself, here's a copy & paste:

"Several years back, disability and life advocates in Texas lobbied to change the state laws regarding treatment of “futile� patients. Formerly, doctors would be able to unilaterally terminate treatment if a hospital determined that continued care would not benefit the patient. The resulting law (Texas Advance Directives Act), signed by then-Governor George W. Bush, gives a family ten days to arrange a transfer of care if a hospital declares a patient to be “medically futilie.� If no transfer is arranged, the hospital may terminate care, even when it would result in the death of the patient. While the changed law is certainly an improvement over its Draconian predecessor, it does not go far enough in protecting vulnerable patients and their families; Texans did not realise that ten days was not sufficient time to arrange for a transfer of care."

Before Bush signed this law, there was NO WAY for a family to stop a doctor from pulling the plug. The fact that he gave families ten days, not realising that 10 days was not enough, hardly makes him an inconsistent pro-lifer.

Fact is, it's not like doctors lacked the right to pull the plug and he gave them this right after 10 days; this law is a big improvement over the previous one.

Oh, and Mina's right. Having a daughter does not automatically turn a person into a feminist. It'd be nice, wouldn't it?

RoyMac - kind of like how I know that you're logically consistent, but wrong? :)

Well, oenophile, I'm glad to know that if my baby were in an incubator in Texas, and the doctor deemed it futile, then I'd have a whole week and a half to move it on my own thanks to Mr.Bush. Thrilled, truly.

I notice you didn't answer SarahMC's question, but I have another one; What if a sexually active woman has consensual sex and is raped the same night, making it impossible to tell if her resulting pregnancy is from consensual sex or rape? Should she be allowed an abortion? Does she have to get a DNA test first to prove it's the rapist's baby? Just curious.

Genny,

I'm glad to know that if you had a baby that was deemed to be futile, doctors couldn't pull the plug without your consent, like they could before Bush signed that law.

If you cannot grasp the simple concept of "better than nothing" or "better than the alternative," I can't help you. If you don't get the fact that the LEGISLATURE wrote the law and had the 10 days in there, and Mr. Bush's choices were to sign an imperfect law or let a Draconian law remain in existence, then I'm sorry for you.

Which question, Genny?

As for yours - again, do you think that legislation should not happen unless it can be perfect? Should we stop giving out welfare to single mothers in poverty because some people cheat the system? Just curious.

Honestly, I've never seen such asinine thinking as I've seen around Feministing. You talk on one thread about how female Presidential candidates are held to ridiculously high standards (damned if you do, damned if you don't) then turn around and do the same thing to your opponents. You HATE a law that has saved the lives of many futile patients because it is not perfect. You hate the person who signed that imperfect but improved law, but don't hate the people who wrote the imperfect law.

It is deeply irrational. Don't let your ideology get in the way of your intellect.

Intellectual consistency is nice, but it doesn't equal moral consistency.

Even if the name "pro life"/"right to life" weren't a particularly tasteless joke, if they truly showed respect for human life even when it came in the form of a woman or a doctor, there would still be the fundamental moral problem: namely, that they feel that they, rather than individual women, should have control over women's bodies.

Intellectual consistency isn't always a particularly good thing. If we were intellectually consistent in applying the principles underlying US foreign policy, Iraq, Iran, Nicaragua, Grenada, Cuba, Guatemala, Chile, North Korea, South Korea, Mexico, along with about half the world would be perfectly justified in carpet bombing the US.

If we were logically consistent about the notion, for example, that it is just as justified to attack countries that provide financing sources for terrorists as it is to attack the terrorists themselves, the RAF would be justified in bombing large sections of South Boston and New York.

It's logically consistent, but hideous, because logical consistency is elevated, in these examples, over basic morality

RoyMac - kind of like how I know that you're logically consistent, but wrong? :)

Oooh, scathing.
*yawn*

Maybe I should give that some thought, though. You do rather seem to be the expert on "consistent, but wrong."

It's a lot like how consistently you repeat the same tired arguments ("I'm not trying to punish women for having sex- but women who have sex should deal with the consequences!") and the same offensive and ignorant comparisons ("abortion is just like rape or murder!"), and how consistently you ignore the difference between "human" and "person" (as though they haven't been discussed and explained time and time and time again).

Consistent, and wrong.

Roy, as usual, you rock.

What I never understood is, if a fetus' life is worth more than a woman's life, what if the fetus is a female fetus? Is that still then case? Or can we abort them then?

oenophile, you and the rest of the pro-coat hanger crowd really disturb me.

No one likes abortion, but the pro-choice crowd at least acknowledges that a woman's right to privacy, if she wants to remove something from her uterus, is a right that should be preserved.

Why do you want to turn back the clock to the dark ages of coat hangers?

I am sure a lot of people have asked you asked you that question, but it sounds like you have never given them an answer that sways their opinion to support coat hangers.

One only has to see the horrors in El Salvador to realize that anti-choice is a socially dangerous idea.

oenophile, you and the rest of the pro-coat hanger crowd really disturb me.

No one likes abortion, but the pro-choice crowd at least acknowledges that a woman's right to privacy, if she wants to remove something from her uterus, is a right that should be preserved.

Why do you want to turn back the clock to the dark ages of coat hangers?

I am sure a lot of people have asked you asked you that question, but it sounds like you have never given them an answer that sways their opinion to support coat hangers.

One only has to see the horrors in El Salvador to realize that anti-choice is a socially dangerous idea.

Oenophile, my question was as clear as day. But here it is again:

Why do women who've been impregnated by their rapists deserve more rights than the rest of us?

And Jeff, brace yourself. A female fetus is not the same as a born woman. Just like a male fetus is not the same as a born man. A fetus is a fetus is a fetus. Not sentinent. Completely dependent on a PARTICULAR person for life.

"If you think a foetus is more important than a woman, try having a foetus wash the shit stains out of your underwear for no pay and no pension!"

--George Carlin

"What I never understood is, if a fetus' life is worth more than a woman's life, what if the fetus is a female fetus?"

That might be an issue for the "abortion hurts unborn women!!!" factions of the fetal supremacists.

It probably isn't a big dilemma for anyone who opposes abortion but still realizes that women are female *adults.*

It's even less of a dilemma for those of us who are pro-choice and realize that women are adults (no matter what kind of "you're a woman now!!!" speeches matchmakers give to 13-year-olds).

I love how anti-choicers think they're being really revolutionary and clever when they point out the fact that half of all fetuses are female.

*crickets*

Still doesn't give 'em the right to leech off my body against my will.

this is what i find the most odious about the lifers. not-so-hidden behind their disingenuous love for "children" is their passionate and virulent hatred of women.

this is what i find the most odious about the lifers. not-so-hidden behind their disingenuous love for "children" is their passionate and virulent hatred of women.

Often when faced with anti-choice people, they use the reasoning that if a woman gets pregnant, then God must want her pregnant. Therefore; women should accept their pregnancy and have the baby. No matter what the circumstances. In Brownback's case it would seem that even rapists deserve to reproduce, and women do not have a choice on who their "mate" is. I guess they'll say God chose that person as well. But God also gave every person free will. Isn't that correct, religious right? It is the height of arrogance for you anti-choicers to assume we insignificant humans can truly change your 'Almighty God's GREAT PLAN'.

Pro-coat hanger? Anti-choice? Pro-forced birth? Anti-woman?

Hell, last time I checked, I'm just asking people to not commit murder.

Roymac, you don't rock. I deliberately ignore the distinction between "human" and "person" because such a distinction was used for hundreds of years to discriminate against women and minorities. If you want to keep it alive, go right ahead - but don't count on me to do anything besides point out your male privilege.

I don't hate women, being one myself.

I don't pretend that fetuses have rights and that women are vessels for babies. I don't think that "consequences" equates to "punishment." I will NEVER force a woman to be pregnant. I leave that to her and her boyfriend who choose to not use effective birth control. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she need not be pregnant. I would not condone a long-term smoker who stated that he has the right to harvest organs from the comatose, because, after all, they are comatose and he is sentient; moreover, to deny him such is to punish him for smoking and to deny him medical care.

Think about your rhetoric. More than half this country is pro-life. Do you want to alienate us and get trashed at the polls when Roe is overturned, or do you want pro-woman people of all stripes who will figure out a way to make decent laws?

Why do women who've been impregnated by their rapists deserve more rights than the rest of us?

Easy. When you drive a car, you consent to be pulled over, to show your driver's license, and to have your car searched. Don't like it? Don't drive. The police lack the same right to stop and search someone who is not driving. A person walking along the street has no legal obligation to produce identification.

Likewise, when you consent to sex, you consent to pregnancy. "Consent" does not mean that you want it or do anything but hate it, but it does mean that you are acknowledging that, as an adult, you know that sex could cause pregnancy and will deal with being pregnant. We'll give you medical care, because the "consequences" of any action do not preclude medical care. You can try to avoid that - with my full support - but, once pregnancy happens, tough shit.

There is a comparable duty on men at that point: when they consent to sex, they consent to 18 years of child support. If they don't like it, they can keep it in their pants.

Murder is the deliberate ending of human life. The progeny of two humans is always a human. Abortion IS murder, like it or not - and you don't get to murder because you deliberately (or recklessly) created life and don't happen to like the fact that it needs your body.

Your baby is not responsible for the fact that evolution did not deal out the benefits and burdens of sex in a fair and equitable manner. It is not your baby's fault and it is not the government's fault.

Imagine a hard core drinker. Drinking is an actual Constitutional right, not this made up right to abortion or "privacy," neither of which are in that document. We do not punish drinkers by not caring for them if they get cirrhosis, but we don't allow them to take the livers out of comatose people because they are sentient and the people in comas are not, and, really, denying them a liver punishes them for drinking and prohibits them from getting basic medical care.

--

re: female fetuses. Like in China? Wow - go figure, the pro-life position HELPS women!

Oenophile said:

Easy. When you drive a car, you consent to be pulled over, to show your driver's license, and to have your car searched. Don't like it? Don't drive. The police lack the same right to stop and search someone who is not driving. A person walking along the street has no legal obligation to produce identification.

Not in the US, you don't. A traffic stop and a search of the passenger compartment must be based on reasonable suspicion. Consent is not implied.

It seems you know about as much about law as you do about reproductive biology. I'm sure there's no point even going into the fact that quite a few women who get pregnant take extensive measures to avoid becoming pregnant, which certainly doesn't indicate even implied consent.

With apologies in advance for the cross-posting, I'm reminded of a passage in my article on Gonzales v. Carhart, which I quote below:

Following the passage of the 13th-15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which formally granted (male) African Americans the rights of citizenship, reactionary elements in the South and elsewhere formed terrorist organisations to terrorise the African American community out of exercising its newly won rights. These organisations came to be known as the Ku Klux Klan, and their express mission was to keep African Americans in "their place". In this regard, they are virtually identical to the terrorist organisations formed to ensure that women's newly-won rights existed only on paper. The only difference is the relative candour with which the KKK expressed their purpose.

There can no more be debate with Right-to-Rape groups than there can be with the KKK. As Noam Chomsky said of Holocaust Deniers,

By entering into the arena of argument and counterargument, of technical feasibility and tactics, of footnotes and citations, by accepting the presumption of legitimacy of debate on certain issues, one has already lost one's humanity.

This is so because there is no common ground, no matter on which to compromise, and no mutual understanding to be had. To enter into debate with such groups is no more reasonable than to debate the propriety of human slavery. We would not even think of debating such a matter, even with wholly non-violent advocates of slavery. We have nothing to concede except our own humanity, dignity, and liberty, for that is what these groups seek to take. Chomsky's statement has never been more literally true. On this we may never waver: We do not argue or negotiate with those who seek to own us.

So now my using my own body for pleasure is the equivalent of operating heavy machinery? Who knew my vagina was so dangerous and powerful?

Yes, a cop can stop me and ask to see my license. What he cannot do is lay a hand on me. Because amazingly, a car and a driver's license are not actually the same thing as my body.

When I have penis-in-vagina sex I do indeed understand and acknowledge that there is a small risk that I will become pregnant. And I take responsibility for that risk by understanding exactly how to go about terminating that pregnancy. Having sex with a man does not mean that I give up rights over my body.

As for "pro-life" policies being good for women because of China? That's like claiming that the answer to misogynist employment and property practices is patriarchal marriage. Which you did.

Just noticed this gem:

Think about your rhetoric. More than half this country is pro-life. Do you want to alienate us and get trashed at the polls when Roe is overturned, or do you want pro-woman people of all stripes who will figure out a way to make decent laws?

What country are you talking about? If you're referring to the US, you're overestimating by about 30%.

Oenophile

You and I are both pro-life, and we both hate abortion. But unlike you I know what will happen if we ban abortion. Why do you want to return to coat hanger days?

You seem to forget that birth control devices fail quite often, and rape victims usually don't get a choice as whether or not a Birth Control method can even be used. The simple fact is that without access to legal abortions women are going to use the coat hanger, or worse move to Canada (actually Canada's great but don't move there for that reason).

I am pro-choice, because I know the alternative is appalling. We do not want to go back to the dark ages of coat hangers.

this makes me so fuuuuuuuurious. as a woman who has faced rape, this makes me so angry that a MAN thinks he can tell a RAPED woman that she isnt allowed to clear her body of the devastating crime that she was destroyed by.
ach i know you all agree.

this makes me so fuuuuuuuurious. as a woman who has faced rape, this makes me so angry that a MAN thinks he can tell a RAPED woman that she isnt allowed to clear her body of the devastating crime that she was destroyed by.
ach i know you all agree.

"Decent laws" don't involve forcing women to endure pregnancy and childbirth against their will.

But really, hasn't the left in general and feminists in particular heard that kind concern-troll advice before? "If you're not nicer, nobody will listen to you! If you'd just move more toward the center (i.e., my position), you'd get more support."

Right. That's always worked.

But really, hasn't the left in general and feminists in particular heard that kind concern-troll advice before? "If you're not nicer, nobody will listen to you! If you'd just move more toward the center (i.e., my position), you'd get more support."

Good point. And why exactly should we be nicer to a reactionary movement that barely garners the support of a third of the population (of the US)? You may catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, but who actually wants to catch them when you can just send them packing?

Elise, one should also note the inherent absurdity of oenophile, who regularly uses insulting language to address those who disagree with her, lecturing anybody about alienating people with rhetoric.

Elise, one should also note the inherent absurdity of oenophile, who regularly uses insulting language to address those who disagree with her, lecturing anybody about alienating people with rhetoric.

Indeed. It's on the level of a movement that can't even be bothered to deplore the murder of women, doctors, and other health care workers (and occasionally one or two of their oh-so-important foetuses) and then expects to be taken seriously when it talks about respecting human life.

Abortion IS murder

And yet, rape victims are given a free pass (since they have more rights than non-raped women)?

If you're not pro-life w/ exceptions, forgive my mistake. But if you are, consider the absurdity of declaring abortion murder and allowing raped women to do it.

And let's say fetuses ARE people. Why should they be allowed to live off my bodily resources when no other people are?

It occurs to me that what pro-forced-birthers really want is to live in a fantasy that they imagine to be prior to the invention of abortion. That way, they don't have to worry about the results of their laws (cf. Itazura), and that's what lies behind the nonsense about how consenting to have sex means consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. Because the fact is that of course I consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant when I have sex with a man. What I do not consent to is continuing that pregnancy. The fantasy is that since there's no such thing as abortion, consenting to the possibility of becoming pregnant is no different from consenting to continuing that pregnancy.

What's too bad for them, of course, is that we did invent abortion, which uncouples the "becoming pregnant" phase from the "continuing the pregnancy" phase, and there's no turning back. And we invented it a long, long time ago, I might add. So most pro-choicers don't see consenting to the possibility of becoming pregnant to automatically mean that one must see that pregnancy through to the bitter, painful end. It's like saying that because I consented to and acknowledged the possibility that eating sushi might give me food poisoning, that I therefore gave up all rights to visit an ER if it happens. Or that because I consented to and acknowledged the possibility that a stock might go down when I invested my money, I can't pull my money out when it does start to go down, but must see it through to the very end. Or that because I thought of a poem in a moment of inspiration, I must write it down and try to publish it, even if after the inspiration fades I realize that it's crap.

Except, of course, that the stakes are infinitely higher, because money, as important as it is, is just money, and bad poetry is kind of laughable, whereas my body is my one and only, as is my life.

EG, if you don't mind my saying so, you are bloody eloquent!

I have never understood why American conservatives want to return to the dark ages. America is probably the only country where it's conservative political organ wants to do that.

The world is not flat. The sun does not rotate around the Earth, God did not create the world less than 7000 years ago, and enslavement of women and/or minorities does not make good economic or social sense.

I am a progressing because I do not want to regress to the dark ages of coat hangers, Jim Crow laws, bad science, and complete corporate ownership of everything.

What's too bad for them, of course, is that we did invent abortion, which uncouples the "becoming pregnant" phase from the "continuing the pregnancy" phase, and there's no turning back. And we invented it a long, long time ago, I might add.

First of all, I agree with anorak - great post!

Second of all, we didn't invent abortion. Actually, we're just one of the primate species that terminate pregnancies when the conditions are not favourable for childbearing. Abortion is just one of many ways that our species protects itself.

obviously retarded it's not like there's good karma in south carolina anyway, north carolina is where all the action is

It's like saying that because I consented to and acknowledged the possibility that eating sushi might give me food poisoning, that I therefore gave up all rights to visit an ER if it happens. - EG

Or that by going out at night, I have consented to the possibility of being mugged, so I should neither defend myself, nor take steps to recover what was lost.

Roymac, you don't rock. I deliberately ignore the distinction between "human" and "person" because such a distinction was used for hundreds of years to discriminate against women and minorities.

Yes, it was. That doesn't make the distinction incorrect- it makes the application incorrect. You know what else was used for a long time as a way of controlling and oppressing women?

Sex and reproduction.

If you want to keep it alive, go right ahead - but don't count on me to do anything besides point out your male privilege.

By all means, please do. If I'm exhibiting male privilege, I want people to point it out. I know that I have privilege, and I try very hard to be aware of it, but I'm hardly perfect. The person/human distinction isn't male privlege, though. It's a legal and moral distinction. Conflating the two is willful ingnorance of the importance of the distinction. A person has moral responsibilities, a human may or may not. In theory, a person doesn't even have to be human. One might point out that conflating person and human is speciest, but, whatever.

I don't hate women, being one myself.

Keep believing that.

Membership to a group says nothing about your ability or desire to love or hate that group.

I don't pretend that fetuses have rights and that women are vessels for babies.

You say that, but the rest of your words and the positions you support speak much louder.

I will NEVER force a woman to be pregnant. I leave that to her and her boyfriend who choose to not use effective birth control. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she need not be pregnant.

That's right. And when a woman becomes pregnant by accident for any reason, or when she intentionally gets pregnant, but decides that she doesn't want to be anymore, abortion allows her to retain control over that choice.

I would not condone a long-term smoker who stated that he has the right to harvest organs from the comatose, because, after all, they are comatose and he is sentient; moreover, to deny him such is to punish him for smoking and to deny him medical care.

See, there are those ridiculous analogies again. It's not punishing a smoker by not letting him steal another person's organs. It's punishing him if you refuse to let him in line for organ transplants. If you say "Well, we've got organs, and we could give them to you, but we're not going to," you're denying him medical care. The fact that you admit that you wouldn't let him just take the organs, even though he needs them to survive is exactly like a woman refusing to let the fetus use her womb. It's not the fetus' womb to use- it's the woman's. She has as much right to deny the fetus the use of it as any other person has the right not to donate organs.

Think about your rhetoric. More than half this country is pro-life.

That is patently untrue. You repeat it over and over as though that will somehow make it true. It won't.

Do you want to alienate us and get trashed at the polls when Roe is overturned, or do you want pro-woman people of all stripes who will figure out a way to make decent laws?

I'm not concerned with alienating people who've already made it clear that they're not my ally. You've already put your chips on the table and made it clear where you stand. Nothing I say is going to convince you, so... No.

I don't care if you feel alienated by this discussion.

I'm concerned with the people who aren't sure yet. Who are wavering. Who haven't staked their position yet. Those are the people I'm interested in, because those are the people who can still be shown how offensive and wrong your position is. I don't care if you feel alienated in this discussion because no law that you're going to support is going to be acceptable to me unless you, like Itazura, recognize that your personal feelings about abortion shouldn't have an effect on other women's right to get one. You are not my ally in this conversation.

You may not be anti-woman in other conversations. You may be my ally, then.

Here?
When it comes to abortion?

You are the enemy. You're wrong, and the position you support hurts women. Not only does it reduce them to walking incubators, as others have pointed out, but it kills them.

Let me repeat that: Your position kills women.

Easy. When you drive a car, you consent to be pulled over, to show your driver's license, and to have your car searched. Don't like it? Don't drive.

That's untrue. The fact that you're driving does not give the police the right to search your car without probable cause. They are allowed to ask for a driver's license because you have to be able to prove that you are legal to drive. If the police have probable cause, they can search your car. Of course, if they have probable cause, they can search you while you're out walking, too.

it does mean that you are acknowledging that, as an adult, you know that sex could cause pregnancy and will deal with being pregnant.

Obviously.
The difference in our positions being that abortion is one way of dealing with pregnancy. If I got in a car accident and was injured, I wouldn't expect to be told "Well, you knew the risks when you started driving. Deal with the consequences now." I'd expect my medical needs to be met.

Murder is the deliberate ending of human life.

No, it's not. That's an incomplete and inaccurate definition of murder. Murder is the unjust talking of a person's life. There are many instances of completely justified taking of human life. If my life is in danger, I may use lethal force to protect myself. That is not murder. In some circumstances, the police may use lethal force against a criminal. That is not murder. In certain circumstances, doctors may remove a patient from life support. That is not murder.

Abortion IS murder, like it or not - and you don't get to murder because you deliberately (or recklessly) created life and don't happen to like the fact that it needs your body.

Thank gods for the rest of us that you're currently wrong. As it currently stands, women can get abortions.

Your baby is not responsible for the fact that evolution did not deal out the benefits and burdens of sex in a fair and equitable manner.

Nor is a fetus repsonsible for being created after rape or incest, but you don't seem to be bothered by that as much.

Oh. Right.

Because it's not really about the fetus. It's about The Consequences of that slut's actions. I almost forgot, but thank you for reminding me.

Wow - go figure, the pro-life position HELPS women!

I'm sure the women who die in back-alley abortions will be glad to hear that.

Many, many thanks, anorak! That's very nice!

evolution did not deal out the benefits and burdens of sex in a fair and equitable manner.

Indeed evolution did not. One of the burdens of having sex if you're a woman and you're having sex with a man is that you might become pregnant. In which case you are faced with the burden of either continuing the pregnancy or not.

Evolution did not hand out the benefits and burdens of eyesight in a particularly fair manner either; one of the lovely things about being human is that we don't consider that a good reason to perpetuate nature's injustices. My mother gets to wear eyeglasses. I get to use asthma inhalers. And we both get to have abortions if we need them.

Basically, if you're pro-forced-birth, you are condoning a system whereby women have to live in fear of their sexuality and men do not. We have the technology to change that. I see no reason not to use it.

Elise, really? I never knew that about other primates! I'd love to hear more about it.

Elise, really? I never knew that about other primates! I'd love to hear more about it.
EG, I did a paper last quarter on infanticide among not only third world populations currently, but also middle-class populations in the 20th century. Without safe access to abortion, it's a practice utilized among many populations today.

Anyway, while I was doing my research, I came across loads of articles on infanticide among primates. I was like, "get out of my research database!" So if you have access to an academic database, look under any anthropology journal and type in "primates" and "infanticide." I did not have time to read any of those articles as I was quite overwhelmed with articles on infanticide among humans.

"the rape tips the balance of rights in favour of the woman...One need not be less valuable for the other's rights to occasionally trump."

So, if I'm not misunderstanding you, outside of rape, in your estimation the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the woman?

Wow, it's so flattering to know that, in your mind, I rank lower than a blob of nonsentient tissue!

Oh, I know, it's not just tissue, it's a potential life. S/He could potentially grow up and discover a cure for cancer, or something.
Of course, it's also possible s/he will grow up to be a criminal or murderer. The mother, on the other hand, is already here, in most cases definitely not a criminal or murderer, actively contributing to society. But the lump o' tissue trumps? You'd rather bet on the *potential* valuable citizen rather than the existing one?

I guess that makes you a gambler.

I'm going to throw up.

Oenophile, I'd really appreciate it if you'd respond to my post re: your claim that "Abortion is murder."

It's self-explanatory, Sarah.

The progeny of two humans is always a human. That's just biology.

Contrary to Roymac's bulls--t, murder is not the deliberate killing of a person, but rather the deliberate killing of human.
http://www.answers.com/topic/murder

If you aren't killing the fetus, why bother with abortion? As someone here said (EG?), the entire point of abortion is to kill the fetus.

Justify murder to justify your pro-choice stance - but the fact that your pro-choice stance means that you condone murder is not my problem.

--
Random question: is the general consensus that you can't be pro-life and have rape exceptions, or that you have to allow for rape exceptions because it's inhumane not to?

I'm sorry, I can't respond to the other comments. I honestly really want to throw up at the UTTER lack of morality. You all prance around and say that abortion is a big moral issue, but, when it comes to actually pointing out what it is, it's all of a sudden the moral equivalent of a condom.

It's a HUMAN that you are killing.

Speaking of killing human life without killing a person, what about the biological fact that *living* *human* cells are *killed* by all the alcohol in wine?

oenophile, are you going to take care of a ever child that is born because a woman was denied an abortion? Is it not cruel to bring a child into the world that will not be given every chance a child deserves? I know you may say that an abortion doesn't even give the child a chance to live. But that can not be true. How can a soul that hasn't been born yet, die?

I honestly really want to throw up at the UTTER lack of morality. You all prance around and say that abortion is a big moral issue, but, when it comes to actually pointing out what it is, it's all of a sudden the moral equivalent of a condom. It's a HUMAN that you are killing.

I do indeed think that abortion is a big moral issue. But I don't think that the right gets to define morality.

Abortion is a moral issue because it is immoral to force a woman to endure pregnancy and childbirth against her will. It is the moral equivalent of rape. It is immoral to treat women as as secondary adjuncts to their fetuses. It is immoral to decide that women's most important role is as life support systems for fetuses. It is immoral to invade a woman's bodily integrity and autonomy.

Furthermore, it is immoral to condone a system under which straight and bisexual women must live in fear of their own sexuality. It is immoral to condone a system in which men can explore the full range of sexual activities of which their bodies are capable without fear of bodily harm or permanent repercussions but women are held hostage to biology. It is immoral to inflict a right-wing view of sexuality on the public at large.

Finally, it is immoral to ignore the real-world consequences of legislation. It is immoral to sacrifice women to painful, unnecessary deaths that could have been easily avoided with a relatively minor medical procedure. It is immoral to tell women and the men who love them that their deaths are acceptable collateral damage.

Just because the morality in play isn't your vision, doesn't mean it's not morality.

By the way, oenophile, you keep telling us that it's a human fetus/embryo that we're aborting. We know. I'd be very concerned if it were a walrus fetus. But we don't feel that trumps all other moral considerations.

Mina,

Living cells AREN'T HUMAN. If you missed the memo, the purpose of abortion is to END HUMAN LIFE.

At five weeks after last menstrual period, the embryo has a beating heart. Wine does not kill my heart - in fact, it's good for it.

I don't care when the cells in my body die. I do care if someone kills me. Mina, under your own logic, I should be able to maim and kill you, since your cells are dying anyway. But, not being a murderess, I don't do that.

Why is that Feministing commentators insist of proving Summer's point that women are too dumb for science? By a show of hands, who doesn't understand what a human is? Who doesn't understand that, once sperm has met egg, you have reproduced? Who doesn't understand the difference between cells, tissues, organs, and entire organisms - i.e. who missed the hierarchy?

Ris - If you want to ensure that rape is always illegal, will you suck off the men who can't get off otherwise? You do that, and I'll raise the kids from unwanted pregnancy.

I'm not supposed to provide every person in America with all his material wants, simply because I want theft to remain illegal. I'm not required to pleasure would-be-rapists, offer myself for a beating to would-be batterers, personally provide counseling to psychos, educate every child that would otherwise be truant, or do a host of other things.

It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. We have the right to non-aggression from other people, and we have a similar duty of non-aggression. Sorry, that includes the child that you deliberately created inside of you.

But that can not be true. How can a soul that hasn't been born yet, die?
Well, if it's not alive, you've miscarried and don't need an abortion. The point is to end human life.

==

As for my "calling people names," can you all get a grip on your hypersensitivity? I've been called:
-pro-coat hanger
-anti-choice
-anti-woman
-rabid
-RACIST (LawFairy forget to take her Midol that morning)
-stupid
-told to take a quarter and buy a brain (thanks, Moxie)
-told to "shut the fuck up"
-yeah, I've lost track of the other crap shoved in my direction.

What have I done? Said "honey." Omigod, I once used a synonym for "prostitute" to refer to a stripper, without realising that it would offend people.

Vervian - it's not potential life. It's a HUMAN. I don't care if it grows up to cure cancer or become a criminal. Under your theory, why not murder toddlers that could be criminals? After all, they are potential adults, and, after all, child care does inhibit women's careers in a disparate way.

EG,

My mother gets to wear eyeglasses. I get to use asthma inhalers. And we both get to have abortions if we need them.

Of course. Your mother does not, however, get to maim other people and take their perfectly-functioning eyes. And she's not even responsible for her nearsightedness, the way that women choose to risk pregnancy.

Roymac,

Acquire a clue.

The difference in our positions being that abortion is one way of dealing with pregnancy. If I got in a car accident and was injured, I wouldn't expect to be told "Well, you knew the risks when you started driving. Deal with the consequences now." I'd expect my medical needs to be met.

Where did I argue against prenatal care? Wow, I didn't.

Do you think that your "medical needs" after a car accident would include harvesting organs from your chosen victim, simply because that would medically help you?

Hell, no. MEDICAL NEEDS DON'T ENCOMPASS MURDER. A pregnant woman's medical needs involve prenatal care, abortion to save her life, and delivery. It doesn't involve abortion for her own lifestyle choices.

Abortion isn't about medicine. Only 3% of women who abort do so for medical reasons. The other 97% have everything to do with lifestyle.

You are the enemy. You're wrong, and the position you support hurts women. Not only does it reduce them to walking incubators, as others have pointed out, but it kills them.

Let me repeat that: Your position kills women.

I've SUPPORTED ABORTION TO SAVE A WOMAN'S LIFE. I don't kill women.

You, on the other hand, take a position that KILLS HUMAN CHILDREN. So it's not okay for me to espouse a position that does NOT kill women or babies, but okay for you to espouse one that condones the killing of 1.3 million children a year (and, also, kills women).

That hatred makes me want to throw up or cry. Now, if I used a lot of appropriate words to describe you, I would be called a stupid rabid bitch, and I've had enough for today.

Wow, oenephile, I've heard you rabid & insane before but this is a new low. In a previous post, you said you were blonde & conservative--I'd ask if you were Ann Althouse but you make her look coherent. Are you sure you're not Anne Coulter? I can see you now, hooked up to a chardonnay drip & trolling feminist blogs.
I promise, I will start a charity to buy you a brain. I'll even donate the first quarter.

Who doesn't understand that, once sperm has met egg, you have reproduced? Who doesn't understand the difference between cells, tissues, organs, and entire organisms - i.e. who missed the hierarchy?

Apparently, you, if you think that one cell--a sperm and an egg together make one cell--is a full human being.

oenophile, I usually try to stay out of this stuff because it's sort of painful to watch people dogpile on you even though I agree with them. But some of your language in your last post makes me want to throw up.

Most notably:
"Why is that Feministing commentators insist of proving Summer's point that women are too dumb for science?"
"If you want to ensure that rape is always illegal, will you suck off the men who can't get off otherwise?"
and
"LawFairy forget to take her Midol that morning"

I know you were trying to be flippant and that people have called you some unflattering names on this thread, but these statements make me as angry as you seem to be.
The first, well I don't think it's actually a matter of biology whether we consider a mass of cells that does not yet exist separate from its human host to be a being of equal humanity to a born human. We can agree that it will be a human once it is born and disagree about what society should allow in terms of what happens before it is born. The second statement implies that rape is about sexual desire (which it is not) and that somehow if men's sexual "needs" were fulfilled rape wouldn't happen (it most certainly would). And the second just employs a stupid, offensive stereotype about women's menstrual cycles making them unreasonably bitchy, which doesn't belong in a post by someone who I thought respected women.

Who doesn't understand that, once sperm has met egg, you have reproduced? Who doesn't understand the difference between cells, tissues, organs, and entire organisms - i.e. who missed the hierarchy?

Apparently, you, if you think that one cell--a sperm and an egg together make one cell--is a full human being.

I'd love to see the evidence of a scientific consensus agreeing that once a sperm meets an egg, you have reproduced, in much the same way that I'd love to see a unicorn. And not a goat that's been bred to have horns set close together and kind of twisted. An actual unicorn.

Sorry about the tag fuck-up on the previous post.

embryo = human
brain cells = not human

Good to know. Here I was, thinking that ALL of my cells are human. Now I realize that only some are. And not only that, but some of those microscopic cells are actually full human beings. Only the cells that oenophile and Sam Brownback choose, of course. Won't someone think of the microscopic children?

Law Fairy forget to take her Midol that morning.

This is so the person I want to take lessons on conciliatory rhetoric from.

Your mother does not, however, get to maim other people and take their perfectly-functioning eyes.

And that's exactly why a fetus doesn't get to use her uterus without her permission. It'll die without it? Tough shit.

"If you want to ensure that rape is always illegal, will you suck off the men who can't get off otherwise?"

Much in the same way a fetus doesn't have a right to my reproductive, circulatory, and digestive systems, a man doesn't have a right to my mouth, vagina, anus, or anything else of mine. You keep making these analogies, and they do not mean what you think they mean.

Why do we keep letting oenephile derail good discussions? I'm being serious, everyone else has pretty much reached a consensus & then she comes in with her pseudoscience & hysterics & we react, which is just what she wants.

As I've been saying for some time, Moxie! But I was met with fierce resistance to the idea last time.

"Mina,

"Living cells AREN'T HUMAN."

If the cells of yours that you kill when you drink wine aren't human, then what species are they?

"Why do we keep letting oenephile derail good discussions?"

Just another case of a drunkard being the butt of sober people's joking, I guess. ;)

I just want to know how many of the "pro-lifers" anti-choicers actually are rape survivors. I am a rape survivor. Not only a rape survivor, the victim of a continued cycle of sexual assaults from the age of 6-11. Thankfully I wasn't sexually mature enough to get impregnated. But I know damn well, that I would not want to raise a child that man put in me. I haven't seen this man in 11 years but that doesn't mean I don't still have nightmares, I don't still feel panicked to kiss my fiance, I don't still watch every single step afraid I might see him again? Are you saying that if someone just "sucked him off" I wouldn't have been raped? Now, what you don't know. His mother gave birth to him because her parents wouldn't let her have an abortion. My rapist's mother was raped and resulted in my rapist's birth. But I am glad to know that there are so many people fighting for the right for another man to be born, grow up, and inflict his desire on yet one more child. The very people anti-choice proponents claim to defend!

But I was met with fierce resistance to the idea last time.
Uhm who would resist that? If anyone else made a post as hateful & screechy as her last one, they'd at least be threatened with being banned.

Well I suggested that she should be banned (I think that she was making one of her abortion=rape arguments) and then lamented why we kept letting her derail things when we could be having an actual fruitful conversation, and a lot of people said that I was being too harsh and that they enjoyed the opportunity to debate.

Now, what you don't know. His mother gave birth to him because her parents wouldn't let her have an abortion. My rapist's mother was raped and resulted in my rapist's birth. But I am glad to know that there are so many people fighting for the right for another man to be born, grow up, and inflict his desire on yet one more child. The very people anti-choice proponents claim to defend!
OmG, ris, that took a lot of courage to share. That's so deeply fucked up.
And what I hate is when people insist that rape is about sex & that men can't help it, it's how they're programed to spread their seed. Rape is a crime of violence, sex just happens to be the tool. Plus, saying "men can't help it" is so degrading to men. It's like when people say that it's not their fault, women are just too dumb for science.

“Contrary to Roymac's bulls--t, murder is not the deliberate killing of a person, but rather the deliberate killing of human.
http://www.answers.com/topic/murder�

Since when can people prove things by quoting answers.com? You can instead go to Merriam-Webster Dictionary where murder is defined as “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought�. In any case, even your own link does not say “the deliberate killing of� but “The unlawful killing of one human�. Abortion is clearly not “unlawful�, even if a fetus were a full human being. Why don’t we ever hear you say that death penalty is murder?

It's too bad, Cara, I had high hopes that this thread would bring harmony to the two opposing sides (low whistle, eye roll, runs away).

Norbizness, are you trying to suggest that we can't all just get along? CAUSE I'M NOT HAVING IT, nuh uh. Go on, give Sam Brownback a hug. No, seriously, you first.

I had high hopes that this thread would bring eHarmony to the two opposing sides.

But seriously...

I've got nothing... although I love clue.

Well, we've reached 0.1 out of the necessary 29 layers of compatibility that insane old man keeps prattling on about.

The distinction between an abortion to save a woman's life and an abortion to save a woman's health is specious. As was pointed out in the oral arguments in Roe v. Wade, you can't protect life without protecting health. An exception to save the woman's life without concern for her health requires physicians, who are sworn to protect a patient's health as well, in an untenable conflict of interest.

These are split-second decisions a lot of the time, which are based to a large degree on the odds. A doctor who is allowed to protect the woman's life and health has no conflict - the decision is relatively easy. If only a woman's life can be protected by means of an abortion, the doctor will find herself in an untenable position. Let's say there's a 50% chance that the woman will die without an abortion. Will that be enough to avoid jail? If the woman lives, will the court then assume that the abortion was necessary "merely" to protect her health (i.e. anything short of death, from infertility to coma or brain damage)?

If you make an exception to protect a woman's life while disregarding her health, you protect neither.

Go on, give Sam Brownback a hug.
I like to think that if a feminist tried to hug him that he'd: 1. cop a feel & 2. run away screaming, "Cooties! I has the lib-ruhl disease!!!!!"
Well, we've reached 0.1 out of the necessary 29 layers of compatibility that insane old man keeps prattling on about.
That man frightens me, but not as much as the Quaker Oatmeal man.

Why do we keep letting oenephile derail good discussions? I'm being serious, everyone else has pretty much reached a consensus & then she comes in with her pseudoscience & hysterics & we react, which is just what she wants.

My point exactly. THe only reason to even have a discussion with someone is if you've got something you're potentially willing to concede. There's nothing to concede to someone taking oenophile's position but our own dignity and humanity. There's also the part where she's full of shit about just about everything she says (maybe she needs to do something about her oenophilia, because it might be turning into dipsomania). In general, it might be good to stop feeding the troll.

That man frightens me, but not as much as the Quaker Oatmeal man.

His smarm makes my paint peel.

I know you've gone away, Oenophile, but I'm compelled to dumb this down for you (since you're a champion of missing the point):

You said "abortion is murder." And yet you think it's acceptable for some women to have abortions (those who've been raped). So either you think abortion is murder but some women are permitted to commit murder, or you only think abortion is murder when the pregnant woman didn't get that way via rape.

I KNOW why you think abortion is murder - because fetuses are human. Yeah. To me, the question is not "Is it human?" but "Does it suffer?" I'd kill a human embryo before I'd kill a chimpanzee.

And another thing -
For someone who frequently uses feminist language to defend her position, you sure do explode into a fit of anti-woman rage when provoked.
Insults re: menstruation?
Women are naturally bad at science?
Perpetuating myths about rape?

"Much in the same way a fetus doesn't have a right to my reproductive, circulatory, and digestive systems, a man doesn't have a right to my mouth, vagina, anus, or anything else of mine. You keep making these analogies, and they do not mean what you think they mean."

Actually EG wouldn't the world be a much more beautiful place for men, If all men had the rights to your body (and every other women's). I mean, personally I would like to deposit my sperm into everyone of your orifices whenever I wanted to without having to ask for your permission. Come on, I thought making sacrifices was the height of feminine virtue, and I thought that all that women wanted to do was be pregnant all of the time. On the topic of your pregnancy, I think it would be beautiful to have my fetus leaching off of your reproductive, circulatory, and digestive systems. And even though I am dead broke and married to someone else, I think you could raise great maladjusted, but otherwise decent, functionally illiterate, auto mechanics without a father to help you.

At least give it a thought. Since it's impossible for you guys (women) to be happy in this world that is going to hell in hand basket, can't you all at least let it be pleasant for the male half, by relinquishing the rights to your body?

(PS That was all satire, so please do not come looking for me, any of you nice feminism, because in reality I am actually a nice guy, just a trouble maker as the name implies.)

OK, Itazura, I get that that was supposed to be satire, and I know from reading other threads that when it comes down to the issues, your heart is usually in the right place, though I disagree with you about the Asian fetish thing, but I want you to know that it is still really viscerally disturbing to me to read something like this, personally addressed to me:

I would like to deposit my sperm into everyone of your orifices whenever I wanted to without having to ask for your permission.

I know it's supposed to be a joke...but it invokes some really unpleasant feelings. Not the kind of thing you should joke about, especially when you don't know the backgrounds of the people involved. For the record, I haven't been raped, but you had no way of knowing that. I'm very close with a number of women who have, and there are some immediate images that come up when you address me like that which are not pleasant. Please don't do it again. And not just me--in general, that kind of direct address makes the satire feel a lot less harmless.

Sorry about that EG.

I pushed the envelope a little too far that time. But when I read your comment about your orifices I just couldn't help myself. Also I wanted to point out how disturbing it would be for women to lose their rights to their bodies.

I promise I will never joke about wanting to depositing my sperm into a woman without having to ask for her permission again.

Still I hope people (both men and women) realize what is at stake if the anti-choice agenda gets enacted.

PS The modesty and liking the taste of authentic Asian women remarks were also meant to be jokes, but I promise not to push the envelope in that area as well.

Itazura, most women here, especially those of us who have been raped/had unwanted pregnancies/been sexually abused etc don't need you to remind us what is at stake if we "lose our rights to our bodies".

I don't know what point your long-winded "satire" was supposed to achieve, because the only effect it's had on me (and others by the sounds of it) is to make me feel sick and think less of you.

Maybe you'll think harder about who your audience is next time you feel like doing some creative writing.

My apologies to women who have been raped, had unwanted pregnancies, or been sexually abused, or to any other supporters of this site who were offended.

However I hope I can be funny and satirical on other topics that won't offend any more feminists.

Also Thanks EG and Anorak for not asking me to leave.

I was raped at the age of 16. Luckily, I was not pregnant, but if I had been I would have had an abortion quicker than you can "Planned Parenthood". If someone had tried to stopped me, I would have probably tried to end the pregnancy using "alternative" methods, a la, overdoses of medication, purposeful injuries or even suicide. To have to look at the child of the man who violated me would be too much to bear.

Just because women can get pregnant, doesn't mean that they should have to have a baby. Our bodies should remain ours, to do with what we want.

I have two children, who I love dearly, but they are an awesome responsibility. They are draining, mentally, emotionally and physically. I would never want to see the day when a woman loses the right to choose whether or not she becomes a mother and when.

I honestly really want to throw up at the UTTER lack of morality. You all prance around and say that abortion is a big moral issue...

I am glad that the issue of morality came up again. I am grateful to EG for addressing it so well.

What is so sickening to oenophile is differing moral views. While it is understandable (in that morality is deeply held and deeply personal), it belies a failure to acknowledge the validity of moral views that are contrary to one's own — a problem that is endemic to people who hold her position. It belies a willingness to (nay, a zeal for) foisting one's own sense morality onto others, even in the event following your moral code would violate theirs.

When it comes down to a matter of belief and ethics (as it has here) anyone who would seek to rob others of their right to their own moral choices is in no position to claim the moral high ground.

Nobody is forcing oenophile and her ilk to undertake any actions that violate their version of morality.. Contrariwise, the assertion that people in that camp know what is best for everybody and would like to legislate that is sanctimonious, bullying and, from my perspective, morally stilted in and of itself.

although the woman did not ask (in this case she was raped) or did (by having consentual sex) to bear a child, shouldnt she give thought into the person this child may become even under horrible circumstances that may have created him/her?

It is erroneous to presume that she does not.

This article called up a host of stuff for me about a family member who was raped, who was Catholic, and who decided to abort. She, with the support, love, and involvement of her family, grappled with her anguish over just the question you raise. She made a decision that was morally appropriate for her at the time. I am sorry, but I feel like jess's assumption kind of demeans her experience and that of other women.

To those of you who have dealt with rape and spoke up about it here, thank you. That took serious guts and composure.

Oh, and roymacIII, I ardently urge you to consider running for office. You already have my vote.

EG-

"Abortion is a moral issue because it is immoral to force a woman to endure pregnancy and childbirth against her will. It is the moral equivalent of rape. It is immoral to treat women as as secondary adjuncts to their fetuses. ....
Finally, it is immoral to ignore the real-world consequences of legislation. It is immoral to sacrifice women to painful, unnecessary deaths that could have been easily avoided with a relatively minor medical procedure. It is immoral to tell women and the men who love them that their deaths are acceptable collateral damage."

BRAVO

Oenophile:

Like other commenters here, I'm disturbed by your willingness to resort to anti-woman rhetoric (e.g., the Summers comment, the Midol comments), but I'm going to offer a couple of comments/questions in hopes of a good-faith dialogue. Here goes:

1) You commented in your first post that there is complaint from pro-choice persons when pro-lifers are inconsistent, i.e., when they condone abortion in instances of rape/incest, but that we also complain when a pro-lifer is consistent, e.g., Brownback , who does not condone such an exception.

On the contrary. Speaking only for myself, what is outrageous about Brownback's remark is not that he consistently opposes abortion rights, but that he's arguing that abortion doesn't benefit (or prevent further harm to) women who is pregnant by rape in any way. In my view, that is preposterous. For all I know, there are rape survivors who find solace in carrying a rape-pregnancy to term, but I doubt this is usually or even often the case. Brownback's remarks demonstrate insensitivity to and ignorance of the experiences of women who have been raped. This compromises his credibility, i.e., it suggests that his "consistent" pro-life position is tinged by the same misogyny that many pro-choicers find evident in the "inconsistent" pro-life stance.

2) You support birth control and oppose abortion. Does you advocate the availability of comprehensive sexual education and readily-accessible birth control for everyone, at state expense wherever necessary? No snark; I'm asking. I will add that I don't think your position (women should be denied abortion because they have the option of preventing pregnancy) is tenable unless your answer is yes, i.e., unless that option is realistically available to every single woman.

Also, I do think that there are other reasons, besides than the difficulty of accessing reliable birth control, that preventing pregnancy is not a realistic option for many women - e.g., women are coerced into inadequately protected sex in ways that don't fall into the legal definition of rape, but nonetheless prevent us from exercising enough "choice" to justify an implied-consent rationale for compulsory pregnancy. Frankly, until we have an end to patriarchy, there's going to be far too much gray area for your reasoning to be satisfactory, at least to me.

3) Per your position that abortion is "okay" when the pregnancy is the result of a rape: I understand your point about balancing, and while I think it's a fair argument, I think it weakens your pro-life position. If life does not absolutely trump other concerns, then it seems to me that your pro-life position is not, in fact, that fetal life is sacrosanct; it is, instead, that fetal life is more important than the hardships suffered by all women who are pregnant as a result of voluntary sexual activity (setting aside the difficult question of what constitutes voluntariness). That's a very difficult argument to sustain, it seems to me, because surely some women who are not impregnated by rapists suffer quite substantial hardships in carrying the pregnancy to term and either giving up or raising the child. If there is a balancing of interests, wouldn't we have to consider the appropriateness of abortion on a case-by-case basis?

Perhaps a stronger argument for your position would be that women who are raped may not have an opportunity to use birth control, hence there is no "implied consent" to a potential pregnancy. But this argument has at least two problems: 1) It looks a lot like a "pregnancy as punishment for voluntary sexual activity " position, though perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it treats enforced pregnancy as punishment for a failure to use (100% effective) birth control. 2) All women capable of being impregnated could, of course, use 100% birth control at all times, regardless of voluntary sexual activity, because there is always the possibility of impregnation-by-rape. So by your logic, any woman who doesn't do this has implied her consent to pregnancy-by-rape. Of course, this reproduces the tendency in our society to make women responsible for taking precautions against rape, a tendency that most of us (including you?) find odious.

4) Though I am firmly pro-choice, I can respect a sincere belief that life begins at conception, and that abortion = killing a (nascent) human being. While I don't agree, as a philosophical matter, that abortion = killing, I do agree that killing = wrong, at least as a general proposition.

Given the technology that currently exists, an abortion before viability (which describes the vast majority of those actually performed) does two things: It desprives the embryo/fetus/baby of the wombic environment, and it physically destroys the embryo/fetus/baby.

I've asked myself: if we had the technology to remove the fetus (my preferred language) from the womb without destroying it, and could then bring it to term without the participation of the biological mother, would the mother have a right to end the fetal life? My answer is no.

However, I assert (and this is the part where I CANNOT reconcile the pro-life position, even with all due respect for different beliefs) that a woman has a right to her bodily integrity. And while the fetus arguably has a right not to be killed, it does not have a right to be nourished in her womb. Similarly, while I have no right to murder a person dying of kidney failure, that person has no right to take one of my kidneys, even though it would save her/his life. Would giving that kidney kill me? Barring complications, no, nor would (probably) carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term. But if the kidney patient can't survive without my kidney, and the fetus can't survive without my womb, it does not constitute murder to deny either one of them those things. In fact, it is my right to deny both of those things.

Responses?

"I've asked myself: if we had the technology to remove the fetus (my preferred language) from the womb without destroying it, and could then bring it to term without the participation of the biological mother, would the mother have a right to end the fetal life? My answer is no."

Does this remind anyone else of marsupials, which are born at an earlier stage of development than placental mammals are?

How would the abortion debate look if the dominant sapient species on Earth that had the debate was a marsupial species?

It would look a lot different, to be sure.

If we reproduced like marsupials, well-meaning fetus supporters like oenophile could put their money where their pouch is and step up to give the everlovin' fetuses some real, tangible support.

If we reproduced like seahorses, the right to refuse nurture to our fry would be written into the Constitution.

I was going to say that if we were marsupials that the creationists would have to believe in evolution b/c marsupials are considered an intermediary between placental mammals. But then I found out that that is wrong! I'm v. disappointed.
But I did discover that female marsupials have two vaginas & male marsupials have a two-pronged penis.

Oh, and roymacIII, I ardently urge you to consider running for office. You already have my vote.

It's part of my master plan.
1. Build a support base on-line.
2. Convince you all to move someplace with nice weather.
3. Run for office.

What do you think?

Where would we be moving? Also, would we be getting miniature American flags?

Mina wrote: ""I've asked myself: if we had the technology to remove the fetus (my preferred language) from the womb without destroying it, and could then bring it to term without the participation of the biological mother, would the mother have a right to end the fetal life? My answer is no."

A few problems here:

1) Gender parity is an issue, since men typically cannot be made parents without their having voluntarily participated at some point. Being required to contribute sperm to a sperm bank at gunpoint hasn't happened yet. So in the hypo women are potentially having their genetic material taken against their will and mingled with bad genetic material. What about a property interest in one's DNA?

2) Very abstract hypo. Who exactly wants the fetus to be removed and "harvested?" Where is the support coming from? Will the "mother" be required to provide support?

3)Note the need to rearrange a lot of our constitutional doctrine that says a biological connection to a child is constitutionally protected. In this hypo, has the "mother" waived her constitutional connection to the child when she consents to forcible harvesting of the fetus in preference to hosting it for nine months rather than aborting it.

4) Brave New World beckons. Since the draft was constitutional, what's to forbid forcibly impregnating women and then harvesting the baby, since harvesting the baby has, under the hypo,passed constitutional muster as a reasonable state action? Not much more intrusive than being handed a rifle and told to shoot people.

Makes the jurisprudence of privacy sound pretty good, huh? Seems like privacy works rather well for people with wombs.

Indeed, it would be nice to take privacy all the way, and have politicans shut up about women's anatomy.

Kattybean,

I can understand why you would think that refusing to allow a woman who is raped to abort (while maintaining a strong pro-life stance in other areas) would smack of misogyny.

Yet, you go on in your third point to criticise me for believing that raped women should be allowed to abort. You're putting yourself in a lousy position - because there's a catch-22 there. If you stick by that, you're going to get a bunch of pro-lifers who make noise about raped women, and laws like those in South Dakota.

My position is pretty simple: I don't like the idea of women or babies dying. I do believe that some raped women would gain solace in bringing a pregnancy to term, but I believe that even more of them would seriously consider suicide. I support an exception for rape for the same reasons that I support an exception for the life or the mental health of the mother. IMO,
"rape" is a per se mental health exception.

I do understand where you're coming from when you discuss the right of the fetus to not be killed, but I think you're completely wrong when you say that it lacks a right to its mother's womb.

I also think you're wrong about extending the sex = consent doctrine into rape. I've chosen a 100% fail-safe method of birth control (i.e. abstinence). Rape effectively removes my birth control method, just as forcing a woman to take antibiotics to mess with her Pill during rape would have the same effect. Also, we don't require that people plan for crimes to be committed against them.

Any analysis of the rights of the fetus v. the rights of the mother MUST recognise a very basic fact: the fetus cannot prevent the situation at hand; in fact, the pregnancy arose coincidentally with its own existence. You might think that a moot point, but consider: the fetus literally has no other way of preventing its need for the mother - that need is intrinsically tied to its existence. We all started out that way - it is a basic fact of human life. This arose before medical technology allowed for blood transfusions and will continue long after we've developed artificial blood. Frankly, if a human lacks the right to the mother's womb, I don't know where we get other rights - because its right to the mother's womb is its right to exist.

(For all of you who will yell and scream about sperm having a right to be children - I won't argue anything that ridiculous. Sperm, like skin cells, aren't human.)

While many people have desired to "punish" women for having sex, preventing them from aborting does not function in that manner. IMHO, biology does that - and biology has been doing that for a few million years. It also distracts from the people who really do punish women for having sex. My top picks for that: the people who kick high school girls out of National Honour's Society for being pregnant, while the guy remains; firing pregnant teachers; calling women "sluts" without a similar condemnation of men. The fact that my love of wine reduces my blood pressure but increases my risk of liver cancer isn't someone else's problem; if I were to get liver cancer, I would expect medical care, but I would not expect to force someone else to die because I have a right to bodily integrity and you don't want to punish me for drinking, now do you?

Denying a woman prenatal care punishes her for having sex. Preventing her from aborting does no such thing. Really, are we that weak? If someone drops out of high school and earns $6.50/hour washing dishes, is that low wage "punishing" him for dropping out? Reality is ruthless, but not punitive.

Frankly, I find organ donation analogies to be misplaced. You could consider abortion to be an organ donation - after all, you are removing the brains from the fetus to do it. In fact, the abortion procedure is certainly more invasive and destructive than organ donation.

The only thing that such an analogy does is to bring a stalemate: the fetus doesn't possess the right to the mother's body (which I disagree with, but will assume for now), but the mother does NOT possess the right to kill it (a form of organ donation).

The stalemate ends when you start to balance the harms to each individual. Even if a person will die of lung cancer, we don't allow them the organs of the unsentient; yet, the right that most women assert is the right to avoid discomfort. (I fully support abortion rights when the life of the mother is threatened, so I can't - and won't - argue for any other position.) The harm to the fetus is death. We are right back where we started: discomfort v. death.

If you are to not balance the harms, the woman does not have any right to abortion. None, zip, zilch. She may have the right to deliver, but that would be done in the context of doing everything possible to save the life of the fetus. A doctor in a nursing home doesn't have the right to kill a patient, even if she may not live much longer; likewise, there is no right to abort simply because the fetus could not survive delivery.

If it makes people squeamish to deliver a baby and let it die on the operating table, that's just personal squeamishness and doesn't enter into the abortion issue.

All of this, of course, assumes that organ donation prohibitions are the result of the reasons you put forth. What if we were to consider the right to not have your organs commandeered against your will as the right to bodily integrity, as biology formed you? When you donate organs, they are permanently removed from your body. Pregnancy does not change the status quo; abortion, and, forced organ donation, do.

If you've heard of Judith Jarvis Thompson's theory about abortion rights, you can start to understand why someone would allow for abortion in the case of rape only. Her analogy breaks down because the woman is not accosted out of nowhere and made pregnant; they not only created the situation in which their bodies would be needed for pregnancy, they created the being that relies upon them.

There is no right to assert your rights via any mechanism you choose. For example, I have rights to free speech, but I don't have the right to harm others in the assertion of that right. My Second Amendment rights (that explicit Constitutional right) does not give me the right to shoot anyone. Likewise, bodily integrity cannot be asserted at the expense of someone else - especially when the person asserting that right created the conflict of rights in the first place.

Between the woman and the fetus, one is capable of preventing the situation; one is not. Basic contracts/market theory: if one person must bear the harm, it should be the one best able to prevent the situation in the first place. Free markets will eventually work to ensure that rational beings will not be in that situation.

Rape undermines this. A woman raped is not a woman able to prevent pregnancy.

FYI: I'm completely for Plan B. I'm squeamish about gov't-funded birth control, at least at the federal level, but don't think it's necessary: if enough people believe in it, they can provide it themselves.

What I would really love to see, though, is for both the mother and the father to be jointly and severally liable for delivery costs. I have zero clue why it should only be the woman's insurance that covers it; why it's her credit that gets trashed if she can't pay. If we consider prenatal care, labour and delivery to be a COST associated with the child, not the mother, we can start getting men to pay those costs. You know what? Rational men would be a LOT more careful about birth control.

Fact is, a pro-life stance that allows for rape exceptions encourages men to be careful, too. Currently, they don't have to worry: if she's pro-choice, he's not going to be a dad, no matter what.

I do believe that some raped women would gain solace in bringing a pregnancy to term, but I believe that even more of them would seriously consider suicide.

Serious question: Do you not think that there aren't women who weren't raped that wouldn't consider suicide if you denied them the ability to abort? Or that they aren't willing to risk great personal harm in the pursuit of one? If you outlaw abortion, women will still seek them- they'll go back to back-alley abortions, and women will start to die from them again. Or they'll take to injesting dangerous mixtures of chemicals in an effort to kill the fetus themselves. It still happens in places where abortion is illegal- it happened here before abortion became legal, and it would happen again if abortion was banned again.

Any analysis of the rights of the fetus v. the rights of the mother MUST recognise a very basic fact: the fetus cannot prevent the situation at hand; in fact, the pregnancy arose coincidentally with its own existence.

I'm not at all clear why you think that this is such an important point. Why does this matter?

the fetus literally has no other way of preventing its need for the mother - that need is intrinsically tied to its existence.

Again: I understand that you see this as really important, but I'm not sure why.

Frankly, if a human lacks the right to the mother's womb, I don't know where we get other rights - because its right to the mother's womb is its right to exist.

Which is weird, because it seems to me that most rights actually extend out from our right to personal autonomy. To our right to self determination. The right not to be murdered? The right not to incriminate yourself during a trial? The right to protection from illegal search and seizure? The right to free speech? Most of our rights reduce back to the right to self-determination. Our right to exist never extends to a right against someone else's body. I have no rights to another person's blood or organs. No matter whether my situation is of my own making or not.

You could consider abortion to be an organ donation - after all, you are removing the brains from the fetus to do it.

That's patently untrue. The vast majority of abortions do not involve removing the fetus' brain. Most abortions are suction aspiration. The entire fetus is sucked out of the uterus.

Further: This isn't really at all like organ donation. Organ donation necessarily involves giving the organ to someone else to use. You know, the donation part.

The only thing that such an analogy does is to bring a stalemate: the fetus doesn't possess the right to the mother's body (which I disagree with, but will assume for now), but the mother does NOT possess the right to kill it (a form of organ donation).

She has every right not to be pregnant, though. That the fetus dies is unfortunate for you, I suppose, but it's no more a case of her unjustly killing the fetus than your refusal to donate organs is the unjust killing of someone who needs them.

Even if a person will die of lung cancer, we don't allow them the organs of the unsentient; yet, the right that most women assert is the right to avoid discomfort.

See, you're getting the analogy all wrong.

In pregnancy, the fetus isn't donating an organ to the woman- the woman is donating an organ to the fetus. The fetus uses the woman's body to sustain it's own life.

You're right, we don't force other people to donate organs, no matter how much good could come of it. We don't harvest the organs of people in comas. Why, then, should a woman be forced to donate her body to another being?

She shouldn't.

The harm to the fetus is death. We are right back where we started: discomfort v. death.

Again, how consistently are you applying this?

I refuse to donate my kidneys. There are people who need kidneys. They can die without healthy kidneys. So, it's discomfort vs. death.

Yet... no attempt to suggest that we should force people to donate kidneys.

Pregnancy does not change the status quo; abortion, and, forced organ donation, do.

In what way does pregnancy not change the status quo? Becoming pregnant does change the status quo. I don't know about you, but most women I know spend a great deal of their lives not being pregnant. Thus, becoming pregnant is a break in the status quo.

My Second Amendment rights (that explicit Constitutional right) does not give me the right to shoot anyone.

It doesn't give you the right to shoot anyone you please, that's true. But it's commonly accepted that you have the right to shoot someone in self defense.

Likewise, bodily integrity cannot be asserted at the expense of someone else - especially when the person asserting that right created the conflict of rights in the first place.

Again, that's simply untrue. If I cause an accident that creates a need in another person for blood and organs, and I'm a match, I still have the right to refuse to give my blood or organs to that person. I have the right to invoke my personal autonomy, even if it means that person dies. If I pass genetic disorder to my child and sie needs a healthy organ, I could still refuse it, even if it meant the child would die. I'm under no obligation to provide organs to anyone else. No matter whether that person dies as a result or not.

Fact is, a pro-life stance that allows for rape exceptions encourages men to be careful, too. Currently, they don't have to worry: if she's pro-choice, he's not going to be a dad, no matter what.

Because pro-choice women never have children?

oenophile, thank you for your long and detailed response. I don't think it advances the ball for me, so I won't pursue the dialogue any further.

roymacIII, thank you for responding to oenophile point by point. I quite agree with you.

OffTheCuff, it was I who wrote the passage you quoted, not Mina. I think you've misunderstood, because it was out of context. My point was that even if a fetus has a right to life, the mother has no duty to permit the fetus to remain in her womb. It was a variation on the "famous violinist" analogy, if that rings a bell.

P.S. - FYI, I am "Kattyben" not "Kattybean."

Cheers.

"Because pro-choice women never have children?"

Or more accurately, "because pro-choice women never choose to give birth?"

"OffTheCuff, it was I who wrote the passage you quoted, not Mina."

Yeah, I'm the one who responded with marsupial stuff.

Meanwhile, what would the breastfeeding-in-public debate sound like if the would was ruled by sapient monotremes?

http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-390160/monotreme

I apologize to Kattyben for attributing something she posted to someone else. I know about the famous violinist. In any event, I am not sure where you stand, but that's not the critical point, since we may agree but need not. The critical point for my post is that the famous violinist is entitled to get out and about, maybe for a hot dog or whatever, and also entitled to keep possession of every shred of genetic material, without any seizures effected by whatever means. The famous violinist would only mate with another musician, perhaps, and would be unlikley to contribute genetic material randomly, on any basis.

To be clear, I mean that the famous violinist is entitled to keep possession of every shred of metaphoric genetic material. The famous violinist must carry the burden of metaphor all the way. Indeed, the famous violinist must consider what would happen, and what to do, in any hypothetical or any set of facts. It comes with the burden of being a metaphor.

If you outlaw abortion, women will still seek them. . .

As Melody Rose writes, in her new book Safe, Legal, and Unavailable?:

"Abortions have occurred in all cultures across all periods of human history. What is more surprising to some is that there seems to be no relationship between the number of abortions performed and its legal status: women have abortions regardless of whether they are legal or not" (28).

"Women consistently report a desire to end their pregnancies after giving the situation and options available careful consideration . . . American women echo the voices of their global contemporaries. Women in different nations face distinct cultural, economic, religious, and legal climates for abortion, yet [the] commonality is striking, and indicates a universality in women's desire to control their fertility" (32-33).