When anyone who wants abortion to be illegal can't figure out a way to punish by law the women who get abortions, it's just more support that they don't care about "the murder of an innocent unborn child." It's more to do with forcing women to conform to a role of obedient and quiet babymaker.

Funny, how today I just wrote about the horrible things that happen when abortion is illegal. But hey, women's lives? psh.

Yeah, and what about the assholes who get women pregnant? Why no talk of punishing them, hm? If they don't want to protect their partner by putting on a condom, they too should damn well have to reap the consequences if women also have to. (Of course, the best case scenario is nobody gets in trouble for abortion, but if woman-hating asshats are going to make it that way, the least their sorry asses can do is be consistent.)

This just gets under my skin! How can people vote for someone like that? I just don't get it. Why can't our government put more money into comprehensive sex education and provide quality resources for parents, instead of wasting it on BS like this?

You know I find it interesting that they say they'll put doctors in jail...I'm pretty sure if abortion is made illegal there won't be any doctors in jail but instead people who are just handy with a clothes hanger. So technically women and uncertified black market abortionists will be going to jail. I fucking hate Fred Fuckass.

"[W]hat about the assholes who get women pregnant? Why no talk of punishing them, hm? If they don't want to protect their partner by putting on a condom, they too should damn well have to reap the consequences if women also have to."

Assholes get women pregnant? I always thought of another body part in that context.

BTW, how does one put a condom on an anus?

I swear, if by some off chance that Fred "Fuckface" Thompson is elected president, then I am going to denounce my citizenship and move to Canada! The shit that has been happening in the US has been downright scary!

Anyone wanna pitch in to buy an island?

Dear Fred "Fuckface" Thompson,

As a concerned citizen, I am suggesting that you should be reincarnated in your next life as a woman, and then have a man tell you what to do with your body.

Even better, you should never be reincarnated Mr. Thompson, for anyone that sees who you are now would never want to see you in the future, unless we could make you some sort of inamimate object, so we may never hear you speak again.

-Citizen A

What's most interesting (or not) about Thompson's abortion stance these days is that when he actually had the chance to vote on choice issues, he didn't vote "pro-life," if I undertsand correctly. Apparently the guy voted pro-choice any time anything came before him. Just another example of politicians pandering themselves out based on what they think the public wants to hear.

How long does it take to gain Canadian citizenship anyway? Should I put my application in now just in case another Republican is elected?

I don't get the NOW statement: ""We are shocked and outraged that Thompson would even suggest support for putting women in jail."

What, women can't be sent to jail now? We should let female criminals go? I know that's not what she meant, but it sort of shows that she's knee-jerk reacting to the statement, not really thinking it through.

A couple of things on Thompson. First, like he said, if Roe is overturned it will be a state issue. I doubt the federal government would or could dictate national abortion policy. So it wouldn't be his call.

Second, if he says we should put women in jail, he's assailed for hating women. If he says just imprison the doctors, than Quindlen says he's being paternalistic towards women and apparently doesn't care about fetuses.

That is quite a predicament there. Why can't a pro-lifer try to reconcile those two criticisms with a compromise? Why can't someone support little to no punishment for women while penalizing the doctor--to signal that we do care about fetuses and stopping abortion, but don't want to imprison vast numbers of women, many of whom don't think they've done anything wrong?

Oh, that's right, a pro-lifer could do that. You just wouldn't like it, because it would show the pro-life position can be reasonable and compromising, and that we don't have to take an absolutist "abortion on demand" position to avoid the opposite extreme.

Sorry, not NOW. NIRH gave the quote.

So when a "criminal" doesn't think what (s)he did was wrong, (s)he doesn't deserve punishment?

Tom, no matter what you say we're not going to agree because you're PRO-LIFE and therefore you don't respect women's bodily autonomy.

Punishment for doctors only is like punishing hit-men but not the people who ordered the hit. You infantalize women and assume we're stupid or don't know what we're doing.

“Why can't someone support little to no punishment for women while penalizing the doctor--to signal that we do care about fetuses and stopping abortion, but don't want to imprison vast numbers of women, many of whom don't think they've done anything wrong?�
So you don’t want to imprison vast numbers of women, but you want to deny them much needed medical care. You want them have to die in back-ally abortions or being forced to carry to term unwanted and/or risky pregnancies, you want to force them to GIVE BIRTH against their will. Oh, how magnanimous of you.

Since when is a 19-year-old woman a girl, and what does "her mama" have to do with it? Asswipe.

Well, I'm available for a green card lesbian marriage, if anyone wants to move to Toronto. ;)

So you don’t want to imprison vast numbers of women, but you want to deny them much needed medical care. You want them have to die in back-ally abortions or being forced to carry to term unwanted and/or risky pregnancies, you want to force them to GIVE BIRTH against their will. Oh, how magnanimous of you.
Stupid question, but aren't those the reasons why pro-lifers aren't for prosecuting women who have abortions? Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with paternalism (as much as you would all like to thinks so); maybe it has everything to do with acknowledging the difficulties associated with pregnancy, although not believing those to be sufficient justifications for murder.

Now, my query to you: if the end result of this "How much time" campaign is that pro-lifers advocate to change abortion laws (which NEVER involved throwing women in jail), and, when abortion is made illegal, women are also prosecuted, do you think you will have done a good thing by women?

Frankly, I don't think that the position espoused by Feministing, Feministe, and others, is anything but anti-woman.

That is quite a predicament there. Why can't a pro-lifer try to reconcile those two criticisms with a compromise? Why can't someone support little to no punishment for women while penalizing the doctor--to signal that we do care about fetuses and stopping abortion, but don't want to imprison vast numbers of women, many of whom don't think they've done anything wrong?

Or why couldn't a pro-"lifer" renounce his (let's be honest here) supposed right to have dominion and control over the bodies of women?

You know, since we're talking about being "reasonable" and "compromising"...

1. Why can't you relinquish your desire to have dominion, control, and power over the bodies of your children? (That's really what abortion is: declaring yourself the owner, to dispose of at will, of the bodies of your progeny.)

2. Abortion is about direct assault on the body of a fetus. Lack of access to abortion is NOT control over a woman's body. Did you miss the part where you decided to have sex? Where you decided what methods of birth control to use? Where you decided that birth control or abstinence wasn't necessary? Where you, through your own deliberate act, conceived a child?

Sure, you might not have wanted that result - people who speed down the highway do not want to kill others, although they are statistically more likely to do so than those who drive with traffic - but that does not mean that your actions did not bring about the undesired state of being.

It's not "controlling" a woman's body to not let her kill her child; she got pregnant through her own actions. The "feminist" point of view is the patronising one: it presumes that women are too weak to be subject to the normal requirement of being responsible for one's deliberate actions - and, even worse, are so infantile that we may escape those consequences by punishing another.

oenophile-

Women are raped and birth control fails. It is obviously unfair to say that every woman seeking an abortion "through their own deliberate act, conceived a child."

Are you trying to offend rape survivors and say that their "actions" (what, being a woman?) brought about their rape (and sometimes pregnancy)? If not, please clarify.

that was supposed to say *got pregnant* "through their own deliberate. . ." sorry

Jessica, Sarah, et al., what we all know is that anti-choicers want to prosecute women and execute women for having abortions -- whether they want to admit it or not. That is a cold, hard fact. Over 17 out of every 20 people involved in the anti-choice movement are men. Men can never get pregnant. Also, with the exception of the Feminists for Life of America, every anti-choice group is led by a man. And by going through all that research, I have concluded that the anti-choice movement is a male supremacist movement. The "pro-life" crowd want the government to have total control over women's lives. And from that, I've concluded that anti-choice people are for more government, not less government.

As for assholes who impregnate women, they should be castrated.

"1. Why can't you relinquish your desire to have dominion, control, and power over the bodies of your children? (That's really what abortion is: declaring yourself the owner, to dispose of at will, of the bodies of your progeny.)"

Of course it isn't. When a woman or girl gets an abortion, she's disposing of part of her own body, not of someone else's body.

There's nothing wrong with the desire to have dominion, control, and power over one's own body.

"Women are raped and birth control fails."

Even tubal ligations can fail. For example: if a woman who wants to never give birth saves sex for marriage, gets a tubal ligation, gets married, and eventually has sex with her husband then she's still risking an unwanted pregnancy...

"There's nothing wrong with the desire to have dominion, control, and power over one's own body."

I completely agree.

Men also sometimes lie and say they are infertile so they won't have to use condoms. Women who got pregnant by these men, like rape/incest victims or women whose birth control (or tubal ligation or vasectomy) failed obviously didn't get pregnant "deliberately."

I hate it when people act like every unplanned pregnancy/abortion is the same. :(

Only 7% of abortions are performed on raped women, women in danger of losing their health, or women in deadly peril. I don't focus on those nor particularly care about them: it's the 93% peformed in cold blood that really piss me off.

The fact that 1% of women are raped does not justify over a million abortions for lifestyle reasons. The vast, vast majority of women who obtain abortions are not in danger and had voluntary sex. Yes, I limit my argument to them.

Jovan,

Those are adorable statistics, but they aren't true.

"By gender, men and women's feeling were statistically the same - 51% of both men and women agreed that abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter while 37% of men and 33% of women said that abortion neither destroys a life nor is manslaughter. While 7% of men and 9% of women agreed with neither statement, 5% of men and 7% of women were not sure."
http://www.gargaro.com/plmajority.html

Mina,

Thanks for the laugh. Are you telling me that a woman who is pregnant with a male fetus is a hermaphodite? That, 18 days after fertilisation of the egg, a pregnant woman has two hearts? That she quickly has two spinal cords?

Really, you honestly believe that the fetus is her own body and not a separate person? That its DNA magically, upon birth or "viability," morphs from her own DNA into the baby's DNA?

Congratulations: you don't even know what is meant by "pregnant." Here's a primer:
having a child or other offspring developing in the body; with child or young, as a woman or female mammal.
See, dictionary.com

A child or other offspring - well, that sounds like something that isn't her body. If it is her own body, pro-lifers wouldn't care. However, she's exercising dominion over the body of another.

Again, thanks for the laugh! I'm always happy when the opposition is left with pretzel logic.

"I never want children, and I would personally rather chew off my arm than abort for that reason, but no doctor in this country will perform a tubal ligation on me at age 26. It's complete crap."

"women like me exist - women who don't want to be jaded when they find the right guy and women who want to share something with their husband that is unique to the relationship."

"The fact that 1% of women are raped does not justify over a million abortions for lifestyle reasons."

Is it merely a "lifestyle" matter when a woman's tubal ligation while she voluntarily has sex with her husband...?

"Really, you honestly believe that the fetus is her own body and not a separate person? "

If you think it's not part of her body then you should have absolutely no problem with her putting it outside her body.

"That, 18 days after fertilisation of the egg, a pregnant woman has two hearts? That she quickly has two spinal cords?"

Of course. There's one heart in her chest and another in her uterus, one spinal cord in her own spine and another in her uterus, etc. Those organs sure aren't developing outside her uterus, after all.

"That its DNA magically, upon birth or 'viability,' morphs from her own DNA into the baby's DNA?"

My ova already don't have all the same DNA as I do, and they're still part of my body. Meanwhile, I know people who do have identical DNA and still have separate bodies.

Oops, typo. That should have been:

Is it merely a "lifestyle" matter when a woman's tubal ligation fails while she voluntarily has sex with her husband...?

The fact that 1% of women are raped...

What exactly do you mean by this?

What exactly do you mean by this?

She means she hopes that those she's arguing with don't know the actual numbers (see also the absurd "Pro Life Majority" statistics).

"It's not "controlling" a woman's body to not let her kill her child;"

She's not killing a child, at least not in any usage of the word 'kill' that refers to deaths of humans. The child may be biologicaly living tissue but until it's cerebral cortex fires up it is not a person in any sense - it is merely some living human tissue and the woman has the same rights over it as any other living human tissue (her own or another persons) inside her body.

"Or why couldn't a pro-"lifer" renounce his (let's be honest here) supposed right to have dominion and control over the bodies of women?"

I thought that pro-lifers were pretty equally split between male and female? Specifically, my memory is that there is no gender difference in opposition to abortion, but that women (pro-life and pro-choice) rate it as more important of an issue than men do?

I didn't find that in the quick internet search I did, but this is a start:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_14_17/ai_75819889

"Abortion is about direct assault on the body of a fetus. Lack of access to abortion is NOT control over a woman's body. Did you miss the part where you decided to have sex? Where you decided what methods of birth control to use? Where you decided that birth control or abstinence wasn't necessary? Where you, through your own deliberate act, conceived a child? "

I don't see any of that as relevant.

Take the case of frozen embryo's in fertility clinics. They could potentially develop into people if they were placed in an incubator or "adopted" by a surrogate mother. But I feel little connection to an organism that has never had any form of awareness (cognitive, emotional, etc.) - that is basically an mass of cells. I have no qualms with them being used for research.

If you believe it has some sort of soul or something like that, that's great for you. But that doesn't mean you get to enforce your beliefs on the rest of the country.

Add in the fact that then you are telling women they need a) adopt your belief that embryo's have some sort of claim on life; b) that this claim somehow outweighs their right to make the best decisions for their health and life.... well, I really don't get that at all.

Ahh, yes, this is what I was looking for (Pew Research Center Poll, 2005).

Women are more likely than men to say that abortion is an important issue.

But there are no gender differences in the percent opposing abortion.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=253

I thought that pro-lifers were pretty equally split between male and female? Specifically, my memory is that there is no gender difference in opposition to abortion, but that women (pro-life and pro-choice) rate it as more important of an issue than men do?

The desire to impose forced pregnancy is a minority position amongst men and women, but much more so amongst women. There's a reason pro-"life" groups often have a rule barring women participating in their clinic intimidations from speaking (Operation Rescue was quite strict about it in their heyday).

"I thought that pro-lifers were pretty equally split between male and female? Specifically, my memory is that there is no gender difference in opposition to abortion, but that women (pro-life and pro-choice) rate it as more important of an issue than men do?"
In the UK a surprising survey came up last week which found that women were quite a bit more likely to have objections to abortion than men:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2170447,00.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=481120&in_page_id=1770
Though it was a survey carried out by a pro-life group, so I am not sure what the questions were- I can imagine it being along the lines of "Do you think it is right to allow doctors to murder children past 13 weeks of pregnancy"

It was surprising to me as in the UK abortion is almost a non-issue, it never comes up, candidates rarely mention it, the objection movement is rather fringe.

But regardless - even if 99% of women oppose abortion - that does not give them the right to impose their views on the bodies of the other 1%.

"The desire to impose forced pregnancy is a minority position amongst men and women, but much more so amongst women. "

Maybe it seems that way because a) politicians/religious leaders are most likely to have their opinion about abortion heard and b) most politicians and religious leaders are male?

My stereotype of the pro-life movement is a) lots of males in authority positions trying to make laws against abortion; b) lots of women working in "pregnancy crisis centers" trying to talk women out of abortion; c) lots of men and women protesting on campuses and outside abortion clinics.

Here is the break down from the Pew Research Center:

Abortion should be....

Generally available (M = 34%, W = 35%)

More Limited (M = 24%, W = 21%).

Illegal except rape/incest/save mother (M = 32%, W = 31%)

Never permitted (M = 8%, W = 11%).

It has always struck me as weird that so many women support the anti-choice perspective.

My ova already don't have all the same DNA as I do, and they're still part of my body.

::Bangs head against desk.::

Y'all hate it when I say it, but I see where Larry Summers is coming from. You're arguing on emotions, not biology, Mina.

Your ova have the same DNA that you do - just 1/2 of it. It's like taking a glass of orange juice and pouring half of it into another glass. Still OJ.

It cracks me up that you think a fetus is like an arm or a heart - i.e. part and parcel of the human body. I presume then that childbirth is an amputation or an organ removal? Pray tell, do you strongly support abortions at 9 month's gestation? If not, why? After all, if it's not another person until birth (when, apparently, exiting the vagina morphs it into something different), why would you oppose an abortion?

Assuming, arguendo, that personhood is triggered by some stage of development or mental function, pray tell, why would any abortions be allowed?
http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php#week5

The brain and the heart appear around the time a woman first notices that her period is late. Whoops!

On the question of whether abortion should not be permitted after the fetal heartbeat begins, 65.5% of 18-29 year-olds agreed, 46.9% strongly so.
I love Zogby.
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=8087

oenophile-

Thanks for clearing up what women who had abortions you were speaking of. Out of sensitivity to women who have been in those situations that you don't "care" about, it might be nice if you would make that clear before seemingly speaking condemningly to all women who had abortions.

I would like to know where your statistics came from.
Being that rape is so underreported I am interested in where definitive statistics about rape and abortion come from.

I also don't know if it is fair to claim that women who weren't raped and whose health and life are not threatened are not in "danger" even if they did have voluntary sex.

Could they be in poverty?
Could they already have children they can barely support?

According to the Guttmacher Institute:

"The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women)."
and
"Over 60% of abortions are among women who have had one or more children."

Are there any other contexts you wouldn't "care" about abortion in besides rape/incest and health/life of the pregnant woman/fetus?

For example, what if the pregnant woman was trapped in an abusive relationship, or in poverty with one or more children already?

Even if a fetus is to be considered it's own "person", it still does not have any right to be in the woman's body if she doesn't wish it to be there. Even if that fetus is granted personhood status under the law, by being in a woman's body without that woman's ongoing consent, that is considered a violation of bodily integrity and the woman is within her rights to defend herself against that violation. As the only reasonable defense in such a situation is the removal and subsequent death of the fetus, we can consider abortion to be self-defense.

I don't really see those examples (abusive relationship/poverty) as "lifestyle choices."

"Are there any other contexts you wouldn't 'care' about abortion in besides rape/incest and health/life of the pregnant woman/fetus?

"For example, what if the pregnant woman was trapped in an abusive relationship, or in poverty with one or more children already?"

Or what if the pregnant woman's tubal ligation fails while "sharing something with her husband that is unique to the relationship" and her morning-after drinking binges don't always do the trick either...?

Oh Jesus Christ on a pogo stick.

Oenophile: "You're arguing on emotions, not biology, Mina."
"Pray tell, do you strongly support abortions at 9 month's gestation?"

First off, she IS arguing based on biology. Last time I checked, DNA is the epitome of biology, seeing as how all life stems from it. And I think you should examine your own argument for 'emotional basis'--did anyone here on this thread ever say that we support aborting a 9 months gestated baby? No.

I'm going to go so far as to you call you a troll, Oenophile--your method of debate does little to enhance or further discussion. Condescending to other posters is not productive, especially if you cannot analyze posts for what is actually written and not what you want to read.

If you cannot step up and rationally discuss the matter at hand, please take your pro-life diatribe/propaganda elsewhere...You do realize that you are posting on a feminist blog, right?

Just to be clear, I in no way mean to be offensive or suggest that opposing views should not be expressed here. I just think we can all handle ourselves with a modicum of decorum and respect while expressing such views, even if we disagree.

Also, I couldn't care less about throwing statistics around. What matters is that women be able to dictate what does or does not happen to our bodies, whatever the cause, whether it be pregnancy or the manner in which we choose (choose being the operative word here) to dress.

And, finally, oenophile, you have not addressed the issue at hand, which is, incidentally, whether or not a woman should face criminal charges/jailtime for choosing to get an abortion. So, which is it? Before I ask what the consequences should, in your opinion, be (and in doing so, further conflate the issue) I'll ask you a simple yes or no question:

Should a woman be criminally punished for choosing to have an abortion? (Again, yes or no, please.)

"Even if a fetus is to be considered it's own 'person', it still does not have any right to be in the woman's body if she doesn't wish it to be there. Even if that fetus is granted personhood status under the law, by being in a woman's body without that woman's ongoing consent, that is considered a violation of bodily integrity and the woman is within her rights to defend herself against that violation."

Exactly.

Too bad some people think the woman's or girl's body has nothing to do with an enbryo or fetus inside her uterus, so they don't care whether or not she wants it in there.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of them even apply this attitude to other stuff. After all, some people don't care whether or not she wants a man's penis inside her vagina, whether or not she wants a "dishonored" relative's bullet inside her heart, etc.

I also thought that the "Larry Summers" jab was out of line(and equally insulting to yourself, oenophile, because you are yourself a woman).

"After all, some people don't care whether or not she wants a man's penis inside her vagina, whether or not she wants a "dishonored" relative's bullet inside her heart, etc."

Of course not, because they think that women only exist to be of service to others (men who want to have sex with them, embryos that want to develop inside them, relatives who want to see them as "pure," etc.).

It is sickening.

"First off, she IS arguing based on biology. Last time I checked, DNA is the epitome of biology, seeing as how all life stems from it."

Right on. Even though some viral life stems from RNA instead*, DNA's still central to human biology.

* You might like _Life as We Do Not Know It : The NASA Search for (and Synthesis Of) Alien Life_ by Peter Ward.
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=13187

"If you cannot step up and rationally discuss the matter at hand, please take your pro-life diatribe/propaganda elsewhere...You do realize that you are posting on a feminist blog, right?"

Maybe she does realize that, and thinks she'd be even less welcome in some non-feminist forum since she wants sex (yes, marital sex is still sex) without wanting babies?

--they don't care whether or not she wants it in there.--

Indeed. I despise being reduced to nothing more than a walking, talking womb. Like my life, my wants and fears, my body, is totally unimportant. Only the fetus matters. This non-sentient thing growing in my body is more important than me?

It's horrifying.

"I despise being reduced to nothing more than a walking, talking womb."

Me too. :(

Aaaand the anti-feminist attacks come out, from our favorite anti-choice "feminist."

You're one to talk about not understanding science, Oenophile. You haven't got a clue how to interpret statistics.

"One percent of women seeking abortions cited rape as her reason for doing so" does not mean "One percent of women are raped."
Nor does it mean "One percent of rape victims become pregnant as a result."
Nor does it mean "One percent of rape victims who become pregnant seek abortions."

It does no good to argue with oenophile, it will just go round and round and round until you reach the point of severe frustration and feel like throwing something at your computer.

I for one, am just so fucking tired of anti choicers trying to dictate what I can or can't choose to do with or to my body. I don't care if anyone thinks that there are some reasons better than others, anything a woman decides to do to her body for whatever reason she chooses to do it is good enough for me. I don't care if she was raped, didn't use contraception, misused contraception, was drunk, on drugs, or participated in a gang bang, it is HER choice.

I think that it is cold blooded to force a woman to continue a pregnancy when she doesn't want to.

I have two children and I LOVE them more than anything, BUT I CHOSE to have them. I CHOSE to become a mother and I firmly believe that it should always be a CHOICE whether to have a child or not and I just wish that the anti choicers would just mind their own damned business and stay the fuck out of my uterus, bedroom and doctor's office!

Stating the obvious: you are discussing a HUMAN CHILD that you want to MURDER, IN COLD BLOOD.

So I'm not sure how I'm the "heartless" one. You are the ones advocating for killing your kids in the womb. Let's be real about the pro-baby killer side. (Hey, throw anti-choice at me, get it back.)

SassyGirl,

I have zero desire to be in your uterus, bedroom, or doctor's office. Just don't kill your kid, clear?

Others,

The line about the fetus being an invader is logically flawed. Get good arguments, please. The basic problem is that (rape aside) you CREATED both that being and that need. Sorry, ladies - it's not an invading soldier or an unwelcome guest in your house.

You assert a right to bodily integrity. You want to vindicate that right by violating both the LIFE and the bodily integrity rights of another.

It's not that the fetus has "more" rights than you do; it's just that you are removing ALL of its rights to vindicate SOME of yours - and, morally and philosophically, that doesn't fly.

The other problem, again, is that most of the time, the woman created the problem for herself. It's like taking a person, tying them up, throwing them on a plane, and then saying that you have the right to throw them out from 8,000 feet up, because you get to decide who is on your plane. Doesn't fly... and I'll repeat that until it you understand how disguisting abortion is, and how morally empty.

It's not about "women's rights." It's about the fact that you subvert the greater rights of another (life) for the lesser rights of yourself (bodily integrity, which, as per above, is really questionable - so it's only a liberty interest), simply because you want to experience physical pleasure.

Um, yeah, I get pissed. It's another person, Mina. Once sperm hits egg, you've reproduced. I'm sorry that you don't understand BASIC biology, but the fetus is NOT YOU.

Should a woman be criminally punished for choosing to have an abortion? (Again, yes or no, please.)

No.

---

Despite the fact that I really do think that any woman who kills her child because she likes to fuck and doesn't like being pregnant should be executed (as should a woman who throws her baby in a Dumpster), I recognise that not all women who abort are as heartless as the Feministing commentors.

I do think that there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between the act of a pregnant woman and that of an abortionist. He (and it usually is a he - oh, why, feminists, are the only ones ready to vindicate your "rights" male? ask any horny 20-year-old guy....) is not pregnant, scared, throwing up, and wondering if his parents are going to throw him out of the house.

As a general principle, the question is so totally flawed as to be obscene. You NEVER, in common law criminal penalties, determine the penalties by the nature of the victim and the perpetrator. For example, you would never say that killing your mother results in 8-25 years, while killing your boss gets you 10 years. The relevant component is MENS REA (hello!), not the identities of the people involved.

The best analogy to pregnancy is that of a barfight. You are not allowed, in self-defence, to meet non-lethal force with lethal force (which is why abortion is wrong); however, someone who kills a guy who punches him in the leg would receive a much lighter sentence (or none at all) than a bystander who witnesses the leg-punch and executes the aggressor.

Pregnancy, IMHO, is not about diminished capacity (or other patronising nonsense); it's about non-lethal force used against you. There are also mitigating circumstances (psychological issues relating to pregnancy) that, IMHO, should prevent a rational legislature from putting women in jail. You know that in every pregnancy/abortion situation where the woman's life is NOT in danger, there is non-lethal force and mitigating factors. Why not say, as a law, that such factors and non-lethal force should result in a jury acquittal every time, so, as a rule/law, we won't even bother?

Reproduction concerns much more than a sperm hitting an egg. Reproduction also includes successfully carrying a fetus to term, making sure that the developed fetus (NOW child, NOT before) successfully makes it to adulthood AND has children of their own. To reproduce means that there is another PERSON with your genes, if you do not carry a fetus to term, there is NOT a person with your genes.

When we start denying women the right to do with their bodies as they will, we are stepping into dangerous territory. Are we going to arrest pregnant women who smoke or drink? Both are legal activities (age restrictions aside) yet, are dangerous for a developing fetus, do we make them illegal for everyone except women who are pregnant? Do we arrest women who eat sushi? Blue cheese? Feta cheese? How about women who have had eating disorders? Even after recovering from an eating disorder a future pregnancy can be effected? Hey I know, to ensure that every potential fetus has the chance to develop and be born, we make women stay home as soon as that period is one day late. We can make them lie on the couch all day, housework could potentially harm that potential person, make them eat only foods approved by a nutritionist, don't let them drive a car, they could get into an accident you know. We could make sure that they all seek the same type of prenatal care (hey wait, who is going to pay for all of that prenatal care and those deliveries of the poor women with no insurance? What about working class women who make too much to qualify for assistance, yet, not enough to pay for that care?) We will have to make sure that all of the women who can not afford to eat healthy can have access to all of the healthy foods she needs to nourish her potential person and we can provide them all with a safe place to live. I could go on, but I think you get the point, at least I hope so.

No one who is pro choice is pro abortion. I have never heard of anyone who seriously tried to get pregnant so that they could abort, nor have any of those on the pro choice front told women to get abortions, just for the "fun" of it.

Do not try to tell me what to do with my body, if I experience an unwanted pregnancy and decide to abort that is MY decision and not that of any other person. It is MY body to do with what I choose. It is not a human CHILD, it is a potential human child.

Oh and the definition of cold blooded, as in murder, is:

done or acting without consideration, compunction, or clemency

I don't know any woman who has not considered the ramifications of an abortion before having one. It is probably one of the most well thought out decisions that a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy will make.

"Despite the fact that I really do think that any woman who kills her child because she likes to fuck and doesn't like being pregnant should be executed"

Yep, because we are all a bunch of whorey whores who like to fuck, get pregnant and then go have abortions, because not only are we whorey whores, but we are all a bunch of heartless whorey whores. Hey, I raise my glass to all of the whorey whores who just like to fuck and then not care about the consequences, here's to you! Oh and oenophile, you really need to fuck yourself.

I've stated this before, but for Oenophile's benefit - the doctor who performed my abortion was a woman, as were the nurses and counsellors involved.

Oenophile - I understand that you feel strongly about this topic, but you must have noticed that every time you post anti-abortion rhetoric, you don't win any supporters here.

Maybe it's time to accept that almost all of the commenters here are not about to have their minds changed on this issue.

I know you won't like me telling you what to do, but I mean it as an earnest suggestion.

It must be frustrating to continually be met with opposition.

All us regular commenters take it as a given now that you are a self- identified pro-life feminist.

We all know you will always oppose abortion.

Could we just assume that your views are not going to change on this issue, and maybe you could refrain from being so hostile to those of us who feel differently to you?

Otherwise it all just descends into name-calling which I'm sure we can all do with less of.

I know it's an emotive issue.

Perhaps you could consider not posting in threads relating to abortion rights.

Of course, you can always tell me to get lost, and that you'll do whatever you want etc etc but it just seems the threads on abortion always turn into an argument between you and other commenters.

That's my two cents anyways...

OH and did you ever stop to think that the reason that more doctors who perform abortions are men is because more men are doctors than women? Only 23.1% of doctors in the US are women (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_fem_doc-labor-female-doctors%E2%88%AB=50)

First and foremost, all anti-abortion activists -- whether they want to admit it or not -- want to arrest women, prosecute women and execute women for having abortions.

Secondly, a fetus IS NOT A HUMAN LIFE!!! It does not become a life until it is completely seperated from the woman's womb. That is why our birthdays are always when we are born. If a fetus was a human life, then our birthday would be on the day of conception, NOT on the day of birth.

Oenophile, you are obviously an MRA. MRAs oppose abortions. Go find yourself a nice male supremacist web page.

"We all know you will always oppose abortion."

I'm actually not so sure. From her other posts on wanting a tubal ligation and wanting marriage, she herself is one of those people who "likes to fuck and doesn't like being pregnant."

If she ever does get a tubal and get married, and then her birth control fails...

oenophile:
Should a woman be criminally punished for choosing to have an abortion? (Again, yes or no, please.)

No.

---

And that's all I wanted. Didn't ask for whatever it is you spewed after the break.

However, out of respect, I'll take on that spewage:

So, based on this answer, abortion should be legal. Let's face it, if you are comparing abortion to cold-blooded murder (even going so far as to use the ridiculous analogy of someone throwing someone else off of a plane, midflight) and yet you agree that women should not be punished for abortion, then abortion is not cold-blooded murder, by your own argument. And, as you clearly believe women to be victims and of less value than men and babies ("greater rights of another (life) for the lesser rights of yourself"--what about my life? Mine is an already born human life...but by your logic, I'm worth less than a clump of cells) I don't understand how you can compare abortion to killing someone else outright and then say that the woman who gets an abortion (who, by your arguments, is a murderer equal to that of throwing someone else, another human life, off of a plane) is not responsible for her actions. I just don't follow your argument. The woman is a murderer but shouldn't be punished? It's evil, but, oh, she's just a poor wittle woman?

PUH-LEASE!!! If you have one, use your brain. If you are going to try and persuade others to your view, how about a little less fascist ideology (yes, that's right, I said fascist!) and a lot more cold-blooded logic.

As is, your argument ain't 'gonna fly' here.

Once sperm hits egg, you've reproduced. I'm sorry that you don't understand BASIC biology, but the fetus is NOT YOU.

*blink*

The irony of your second statement is astounding.

Once a baby exits your uterus you've reproduced. A woman who had ten miscarriages before giving birth to one baby is not the mother of eleven children.
Sperm + egg =/= fetus. It's just a fertilized egg. Unless it attaches to the uterine wall it's not becoming anything more than a fertilized egg.

@Oenophile:

Laying aside for a moment the whole notion that something with rudimentary cortical development is somehow equivalent to a fully-developed being with memories and dreams, I must address your statement about "women who like to fuck but don't like to be pregnant".

You see, by your logic, I'm in that category. I enjoy fucking my husband, but I don't feel that it's feasible for me to have a child right now. I'm using birth control... but there's a chance that could fail. When we were teenagers, we used two kinds of birth control... but it's possible those could both have failed. I could see about getting my tubes tied... but I would like to have a child when I'm more financially stable. Besides, tubal ligations can fail too.

But, according to your logic, if I get pregnant right now, I have to bring it to term. Too bad if it would bankrupt us. Too bad if I'd lose my job. Too bad if the kid would have to grow up with my resentment. Too bad if we might not be able to give the kid the kind of care, pre- and post-natal, that a child deserves. It's just our punishment for selfishly not remaining abstinent.

You're basically saying, "The only moral and responsible choice is the one that I, Oenophile, have made. Every other choice is irresponsible and immoral, and these irresponsible and immoral women should be saddled with kids as punishment."

That's... wow. That not only bespeaks an inability to walk a mile in another woman's shoes, it bespeaks an unwillingness even to try.

It is also rather classist, as it assumes that everyone has the resources and education to be able to make the kind of choices that you and I can. They don't. Let's not forget that.

ShifterCat-

I mentioned lack of resources/poverty to her in a much earlier comment and she completely ignored me.

I think that you hit the nail on the head when you said: "That not only bespeaks an inability to walk a mile in another woman's shoes, it bespeaks an unwillingness even to try."

"I think that you hit the nail on the head when you said: 'That not only bespeaks an inability to walk a mile in another woman's shoes, it bespeaks an unwillingness even to try.'"

...even if that woman is her own future self and those shoes are the ones she may wear herself later...

So, oenophile, an embryo made in a petri dish means the egg donor is pregnant and a mother?