"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.