Woo, a real argument with premises and conclusion. A tight argument I stumbled over on the Killing the Afterlife blog. (http://killtheafterlife.blogspot.com) A neat thread to look at if ya have the time.
1) A person owns themselves
2) Self ownership implies the right to free will
3) In having free will, you cannot have a duty to perform any affirmative actions.
Conclusion– You have no duty to provide another with the means to live.
Therefore it is permissible to remove anything classified as a separate entity from your body.
As my partner edified for me in talking about abortion on a feckless youtube thread. Do not even go down the ‘personhood’ road. It starts and ends with a persons right to their own body. I think this particular argument does a nice job of augmenting that sentiment.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
202 comments
June 22, 2009 at 10:45 am
Adam
Agreed. Better dead than poor and unwanted, I always say.
LikeLike
June 22, 2009 at 10:57 am
Adam
Theo, I stopped posting responses to Christine a while ago, after I realised that I was spending less time making coherent arguments and more time making snide comments about cerebral faculties. I laughed loud at the above ‘painfully stupid’ comment.
You can’t make this stuff up.
LikeLike
June 22, 2009 at 11:01 am
Adam
There is a dirty four letter word for people who spout drivel like this. That word is fool.
LikeLike
June 22, 2009 at 11:10 am
Adam
Nice. I like your way with words, Dale.
Consider me a fan.
LikeLike
June 22, 2009 at 11:16 am
Adam
Christine, you pointed out that “Like I said YOU DO NOT MATTER! YOU DO NOT EVEN HAVE A UTERUS!!”
And you don’t have a pair of testicles. You don’t have the testosterone that comes along with them. You don’t have the upper body strength of males that results from that testosterone. You don’t matter, as I can destroy you, physically. You’re going to have to take my word for that.
Just applying your ‘reasoning’ to my pwn situation. (pun intended!)
LikeLike
June 22, 2009 at 11:25 am
Adam
If only all pro-aborts towedyour line of argument. Abortion would be ‘illegalized’ tomorrow.
LikeLike
June 22, 2009 at 11:29 am
Adam
Katie, you said
“As far as having to bring babies into the world because we created them so it is our responsibility…I disagree. I used a condom. I took precautions. The condom broke, as it sometimes can do, and I got pregnant. If you really want to blame someone, you can blame Trojan.”
Trojan is to blame? Did you sue them? Why not? Oh, right. YOU were the one having sex.
A little piece of latex broke? Dang it! Your plan was next to fool-proof!
LikeLike
June 22, 2009 at 11:34 am
Adam
Right on Monique. Who does give a crap that the condom broke, as if latex breaking justifies murder.
I’m a fan.
LikeLike
June 22, 2009 at 11:40 am
Adam
I can’t tell you how ironic it is when someone who can’t spell ‘retarded’ calls someone else dumb.
*retarted=retarded
p.s. ‘illegalized’ is not a word.
LikeLike
June 22, 2009 at 11:44 am
Adam
I didn’t realize that you are illiterate as well as foolish. Monique explained that the father of her baby in fact wanted the child, and she did not tell him of her actions. Therefore, your baseless claim that she got pregnant to ‘get the man’ is as hollow as your arguments.
LikeLike
June 22, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Christine
Adam… I doubt you could take me mentally or physically! And if you have balls… send it to my personal email.. Asshole. cmgolden2006@yahoo.com or cell listed too!
As far as the pro-life/choice debate goes. Life as a human being begins at birth you idiot! As a fetus/ embryo starts at conception; I suppose you are like all the very smart individuals here: you can predict the future and you know that all elective abortions kill? Are you kidding. It is not humanly possible for you to know for sure that an elective abortion would have gone to full term.
There is no way for humans to avoid the abortion option period. Health/ life of the mother, age of the mother, risks to the fetus, risks to the mother the lists could go on and on!!!
So men have balls, sperms etc… the female has to carry the pregnancy to term. So again on the pro-life pro-choice debate unless you do have a uterus… you will never know….. or have a right to decide. Bottom line the final decision is with the mother. That will never change!
LikeLike
June 22, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Christine
Adam did you seriously just say that a woman should not have sex unless she is okay with the potential of having a baby? You have had sex before right? Sex is done for more than just having children you idiot. What if you are a couple that does not want kids, birth control fails, just because of the prolifers nosey asses she has to have the baby? NO SHE DOES NOT! Size does matter! (that was a joke) We are never going to agree. Do not worry this topic will touch you life sooner or later, I only hope that whether it is your girlfriend, wife, mother, daughter, or sister you have the maturity to let her choose what is best for her life.
LikeLike
June 22, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Christine
Adam it is me again… I just had to go thru all your stupid comments. Let me guess you have never had sex? Jerk
LikeLike
June 22, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Christine
Adam you are an ass.
LikeLike
June 22, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Christine
Adam… murder is a crime. Thats the point you idiot! WE did not commit a crime/ or murder.
LikeLike
June 22, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Christine
adam reread dumb ass…. No where did Monique say that the babys daddy wanted her.
LikeLike
June 22, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Bret
Ummm actually, we do it every day at the Pregnancy Center I volunteer with. IF only more pregnancy centers could get the type of funding Planned Parenthood does…..you are aware that my tax dollars go to fund abortion, right?
To the tune of $300 million a year, just to Planned Parenthood, who are extremely profitable, especially for a 501 (3) c.
So, while you may assert that as male, I dont have any deciding factor on whether my child lives or dies, certainly I should have a decision on how my tax dollars are spent.
Before you start with the ad himonem attacks, please be aware that my degree included repro, genetics, organic and bio chem and tons of micro. I
LikeLike
June 22, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Bret
“Don’t want an abortion, then don’t get one”
Do I have to continue paying for abortions?
LikeLike
June 22, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Bret
138:1
Any idea what that ration represents??
That would be ‘abortions to adoption referrals’ from Planned Parenthood.
Doesnt sound like “choice” to me.
LikeLike
June 23, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Christine
Bret,
Sounds like to me you are against our tax dollars going to fund abortions right? Ratio I would assume is 138 abortions to 1 referral for adoption. I know that if you are pro life the expense has to be bothersome; I agree any expense for government programs are not anyones choice meaning; food stamps, aid to dependent children, subsidized housing etc…. If you understand that planned parenthood gives everyone the choice (without the religion guilt trip some put on these teens) It is unfortunate that most would prefer to abort then carry to term. Again, neither one of us knows the circumstances of each “choice” to abort. But lets think of it another way too. If the choices were limited to adoption and keeping the child. I believe the number of adoptions would not increase by much. But what would increase is the number of people on welfare, food stamps and aid to dependent children. There would also be an increase in illegal black market abortions, suicides. Everyone has the right to have health care option that includes termination of pregnancy. So lets look @ the dollars to fund abortions (I really did not know that our tax dollars went for that) and compare it to the cost to raise these unwanted babies from prenatal care, birth, housing, food, formula, healthcare etc…. These expenses would probably triple or more; for the choice of forcing children to keep children.
Of course I am the extreme other end of pro-life. I believe every woman shoud have to right to choose on whether or not to carry a baby to full term. There are so many reasons that I feel this way and would love to have a debate with someone that can debate without calling people baby killers. I think that label is not productive. Approaching the pro choicers that way just fuels the battle.
I have several what ifs.. that I bet that most prolifers would abort, if they were put similar situations.
There are so many factors that contribute to a womans decision. I have never meant disrespect to the male in any way. In the perfect world every woman would give the father a choice. But bottom line if the mother and father do not agree; the mother has the final choice to make. I really do wish that we could let the men try that on for awhile and see what it feels like.
One last thing. Prolifers assume that because someone is pro-choice and/or aborts that these people do not have feelings or do not greive. No matter what the circumstances are there is always a lot of emotions no matter what the parents choose.
Also, alot of prolifers assume that the abortions are just done by irresponsible teens; Not only is the probably not accurate; but this group very likely includes children under the age of 14 or 15.
Bret again no disrespect intended; I would love to hear more from you.
LikeLike
June 23, 2009 at 9:45 pm
The Arbourist
Why yes, yes you do. You may have well of asked, should you continue to pay for roads. ( and yes, you have to pay for those too.)
LikeLike
June 23, 2009 at 9:53 pm
The Arbourist
Ah, no.
Despite the fact that you are erroneously identifying a fetus as a human being that has the moral worth of an adult. The fact still remains that:
IF you hold moral equivalence between the fetus/adult human, then to remain consistent the problem of spontaneous abortion should be the number one cause of the pro-life movement because it is killing fetuses at rate vastly greater than abortion.
So you can either stick with the moral equivalence and tackle the spontaneous abortion problem, or admit that really…a fetus does not have the same moral worth as an adult.
So please, stop misidentifying the fetus as a ‘human being’. It is far too general a term, and dishonest argumentation.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Adam
I have to say that while I have been hit on over the internet before, no one has asked to see a picture of my balls. You break new ground every time I read your comments, haha.
Ah, still laughing.
Ok. Where is your proof that life starts after birth? By definition, if something is not alive, it is dead. You cannot escape that fact. If something not alive were something other than dead (assuming what we are talking about is biological) then you could have an argument, however, anything biological is in one of two states of being, and they are 1. Alive or 2. Dead.
Really, really simple stuff. It’s not about rights or choices or ownership, it’s about what is alive and what is dead, or made to be dead.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Adam
Oh yeah. Do you know what a deadlift is? I did a 405 pound deadlift today after work at the gym.
Still think you can take me? Heh.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Adam
Christine, yes, I’ve had sex (I’m married) and yes, I agree that sex is about more than having kids (which is why my wife is on the pill). What I did say was that even though I don’t want kids right now, my wants are subservient to life. I am a man, and although there are times when I want to have sex with other women, those wants are subservient to my marriage, and therefore not an option. That’s what my point was. Sacrifice. Don’t want kids? Don’t have sex. I’d love to be a father, my wife isn’t ready so we are taking precautions. However, if she did get pregnant and murdered my child, I believe that would be the end of our marriage. I can’t imagine a universe in which my wife would do such a thing, but if it existed, I would be so disgusted with her selfishness that our marriage would end.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Adam
About the virgin quip, guess again!
Haven’t seen any refutations, or counter sources to the brief list of peer-reviewed university texts I provided from you and your ilk.
But then again, there are none that advocate what you wish them too.
I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.
I thought some of my comments were quite funny. I especially like the one about ‘illegalizing’ abortion, the same way murder and theft are ‘illegalized’.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Adam
Never knew what a record player felt like until now
skip
skip
skip
skip
skip
Ahem. One last time. Killing innocent humans is murder. Abortion kills an innocent human. Abortion is murder.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Adam
Most definitely am.
I am also correct.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Adam
Well, the comment that the boyfriend made when he said “you killed my baby” was kind of indicative that he would have chosen to have the baby. Just that.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Adam
How hollow. You are thankful that someone has the choice to decide life or death for an innocent.
You sound like a ghoul. You honor the choice of life and death equally. That is evil.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Neil
Scientific fact: A new human being is created at conception. If pro-abortionists can’t get that right they shouldn’t even be in the discussion. Go check any embryology textbook — http://abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony
I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Neil
Katie and Christine’s comments are an excellent example of pro-abortion reasoning. They commit the same fallacy over and over and do so reflexively. They assume what they should be proving, namely that abortion kills an innocent human being.
That is a red herring. We aren’t talking about abortions done to save the life of the mother. I don’t know a single pro-lifer who objects to those.
That ignores the scientific fact that abortion kills an innocent human being. Many people think that is a good argument.
And technically speaking, your parasite argument isn’t just about a uterus. It would justify partial birth abortion and even full birth abortions provided that the umbilical cord to the “parasite” hadn’t been cut yet.
Another charming “Christian” argument.
That ignores the other human being in the equation.
That ignores the other human being in the equation. They are part of “everyone.”
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 5:37 pm
theobromophile
I sure did. The fetus has a functional parasitical relationship with the mother in question. As Neil is so fond of saying, it is a scientific fact.
Except when the mother wants it. As liberals are so found of pointing out, words have meaning in our language. “Parasite” implies a lot of things that simply do not apply to babies. I’m trying to imagine a woman with a wanted 8-month-old foetus claiming that it was a parasite… or a conjoined twin claiming that her sister is a parasite.
That is, of course, ignoring the biological fallacy in your argument. It’s a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one. (Women’s bodies were designed to have children. That pretty much negates any possibility of a parasitic relationship.)
Finally, if unborn babies are parasites, then born ones (especially the breastfeeding ones) are, too.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 5:42 pm
theobromophile
ROFLMAO. Are you seriously suggesting that, in this day and age, a woman could not find functional contraception and thus, the strain of repeat pregnancies would kill her? Get out of the nineteenth century and join us in 2009!
The other thing is this: if we are to believe your argument, with the implied assumption that birth control is inherently unreliable and will produce scads of pregnancies, what does that do for your view of the abstinence-only education movement? If contraception is unreliable, then aren’t we doing our teenagers are huge disservice by claiming that they can have “safe” sex?
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 5:46 pm
theobromophile
Adam,
Even Planned Parenthood stated, back in the 1960s, that abortion ends a human life.
The modern contortions of the anti-science crowd are amazing. The most basic biological facts indicate that life begins at conception. This is nothing more or less than a statement of fact. The progeny of two humans, furthermore, is always a human.
By the time a woman notices that her period is late, the baby’s heart has begun to beat. So even if a fertilised egg isn’t life, it’s pretty hard to argue that a human being with a beating heart isn’t… a living human being.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 6:56 pm
theobromophile
Problematically for liberals, pro-life legislation will not result in back alley abortions. Pre-Roe, contraception was not widely available; workplaces discriminated against women like never before; and there were no resources for women who wanted to continue their education while raising babies. Today, it’s easier than ever to not get pregnant and, once pregnant, easier to live a successful life.
Women who threaten back-alley abortions in order to fight pro-lifers are like robbers who hold up a bank by putting a gun to their own heads. Self-inflicted wound, all around.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 6:59 pm
theobromophile
Note to Christine: rape is a crime, too. I suppose that, under your “reasoning,” there is nothing wrong with a husband forcing himself on his wife where that is legal, since it’s just having sex as is sanctioned by the law. That’s obviously not rape, since rape is a crime, right?
Oh, wait… it’s not Adam who is the idiot.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 7:04 pm
theobromophile
Christine: can you really prove that Monique got herself knocked up to keep the baby’s father, or are you just being a bit of a witch who isn’t aging well and needs to take out her anger on random strangers?
At this point, you’ve criticised people who have gotten pregnant at a young age and had their parents help them out (as if their parents would rather their grandkids be dead or shuttled off to some foster family), people who got pregnant and made a go of it on their own; and people whom you think have trust funds (but really don’t).
So, pray tell, when is it NOT selfish for a woman to avoid murdering her baby? If she has inherited wealth, that’s bad. If she’s poor and works for her money, that’s bad. If the baby’s grandparents help out, that’s also bad.
What you have are issues, not pro-choice arguments.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 7:06 pm
theobromophile
Katie, your love of babies and children doesn’t make your abortion a morally acceptable act; it just makes you inconsistent (and blind).
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 7:10 pm
theobromophile
Katie: if you are ever pregnant and the victim of a crime, I can assure you that you will quickly be singing a different tune. The loss will not be all about you, but will be about how your baby was killed.
Again, Scott Peterson was charged with double homicide. The California legislation, for anyone who cares, does not require that the foetus be viable outside its mother’s womb; it only requires that it be more than 8 weeks (I think) in gestation.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 7:11 pm
theobromophile
I always thought that it was 186:1. Eh, maybe about ten women chose to give their babies up for adoption and mangled the statistics for like the next decade.
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 11:31 pm
The Arbourist
theobromophile said “That is, of course, ignoring the biological fallacy in your argument. It’s a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one”
Here’s a definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=parasite)
par·a·site (pār’ə-sīt’)
n.
1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
If you’re going to argue against the validity of this term, do so based on how its actually used, not on how you can misconstrue it.
Also, for the record parasitism is a subset of the symbiotic term. Others include mutualism, commensalism, amensalism, which do not apply to the fetus/mother relationship. Although I am interested in you explaining further how I am using a biological fallacy in describing the functional parasitical relationship between a fetus and mother.
“Women’s bodies were designed to have children. That pretty much negates any possibility of a parasitic relationship”
Which is like saying that caterpillars were designed for carpenter wasp larva to infect in that particular instance. Creationists and proponents of intelligent design are noted for making similar questionable comparisons.
““Parasite” implies a lot of things that simply do not apply to babies. ”
Similarly, the term ‘human being’ implies a lot of things that do not apply to fetuses.
“Finally, if unborn babies are parasites, then born ones (especially the breastfeeding ones) are, too.”
It fits the definition, reinforcing my point. Thank you.
LikeLike
June 25, 2009 at 12:23 am
The Arbourist
There ya go. Your definition of ‘innocent humans’ is wrong. Crisis averted.
Taken from http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html courtesy of Elroy.
Is abortion murder?
No. Absolutely not.
It’s not murder if it’s not an independent person. One might argue, then, that it’s not murder to end the life of any child before she reaches consciousness, but we don’t know how long after birth personhood arrives for each new child, so it’s completely logical to use their independence as the dividing line for when full rights are given to a new human being.
Using independence also solves the problem of dealing with premature babies. Although a preemie is obviously still only a potential person, by virtue of its independence from the mother, we give it the full rights of a conscious person. This saves us from setting some other arbitrary date of when we consider a new human being a full person. Older cultures used to set it at two years of age, or even older. Modern religious cultures want to set it at conception, which is simply wishful thinking on their part. As we’ve clearly demonstrated, a single-cell zygote is no more a person that a human hair follicle.
But that doesn’t stop religious fanatics from dumping their judgements and their anger on top of women who choose to exercise the right to control their bodies. It’s the ultimate irony that people who claim to represent a loving God resort to scare tactics and fear to support their mistaken beliefs.
It’s even worse when you consider that most women who have an abortion have just made the most difficult decision of their life. No one thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. No one tries to get pregnant just so they can terminate it. Even though it’s not murder, it still eliminates a potential person, a potential daughter, a potential son. It’s hard enough as it is. Women certainly don’t need others telling them it’s a murder.
It’s not. On the contrary, abortion is an absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body.
LikeLike
June 25, 2009 at 8:58 am
The Intransigent One
Yeah, pro-choicers are always out there picketing labour & delivery wards, setting up fake prenatal care clinics where we threaten women with a life of misery if they don’t abort (and slipping RU486 into their drinks), and stalking and terrorizing obstetricians, midwives, and neonatologists.
Seriously though, how does having a choice between A, B, and C limit the options available to a woman who wants to do A or B? Especially when one of those options is the default?
LikeLike
June 25, 2009 at 11:29 am
theobromophile
Obviously, one does not need to overtly work against a choice in order for it to be less available.
98% of college students who get pregnant have abortions. If abortion were not legal, and people didn’t have them to that degree, there would be a LOT more pressure on universities to be friendly for women: they would have parenting dorms, day care options, parental leave, financial aid counselors who could help women get the aid they need for their families, etc.
Obviously, that isn’t happening, which fundamentally changes women’s options once pregnant.
If you cannot see that the “‘Just’ have an abortion” line of reasoning diminished women’s choices (and is fundamentally misogynistic), that would be your problem, not mine.
LikeLike
June 25, 2009 at 11:41 am
theobromophile
Sorry, Abourist; Neil already dismantled that argument.
If you need it to be dismantled (read: trashed) again, though, I’m more than willing to help.
Here’s your “logic,” taken to its logical conclusion:
Since conditions for women in other countries (with genital mutilation, disenfranchisement, honour killings, and the like) are far worse than they are here in America, if you are really a feminist, fixing those countries should be your Number One Priority. If you so much as donate a dollar to a women’s education foundation in America, when that same dollar could be used to end FGM, you are not really a feminist.
Now, dismantling the “argument” you’ve put forth: the way in which people spend their time and money is not a necessary reflection of the relative moral worth of various causes. Pro-lifers may rationally believe it easier to save thousands of lives with advances in cancer treatment than to save unborn babies who are dying of spontaneous abortion. It’s not a matter of putting your money and time towards the “most worthy” goal; it’s often a matter of doing the most good. Yes, we might be able to save ten times as many lives by fighting spontaneous abortion (although I won’t concede that – see below) as by fighting cancer, but at 1000 times the cost, it wouldn’t be worth it. Basic cost/benefit analysis; your logic fails in that you only analyse one part of that.
Oh, by the way, Ms. Anti-Science: you need to learn why spontaneous abortions occur. Usually, the babies are genetically abnormal to a very, very high degree; they could not develop normally, no matter what. That has ZERO bearing, however, on the ethics of destroying a healthy baby which, obviously, was not spontaneously aborted. (The last point is a bit of a “duh,” and I often wonder why anti-lifers bring up these arguments.)
Finally, if so many lives are lost via natural causes, wouldn’t we find the ones that do survive to be more, not less, precious?
Logic, science, and ethics. Try another talking point.
LikeLike
June 25, 2009 at 11:45 am
theobromophile
ROFLMAO. I’m so stealing that.
LikeLike
June 25, 2009 at 11:49 am
theobromophile
A foetus is a human being. Egg and sperm are gametes. Really basic biology here.
Furthermore, the only reason that the foetus’s potential to be a toddler would not be realised is if someone kills it. Kind of like saying, “That toddler only has the potential to be an adult, and, even if it most likely will be unless I kill it, I’m going to kill it because it’s only a potentiality.”
LikeLike
June 25, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Intransigentia
I certainly don’t disagree with you that educational and employment environments have a long way to go before they can be considered childbearing-friendly, and that until they are, women are always going to be playing catch-up because of the biological fact that we get pregnant and men don’t. Sufficient economic/social/medical support for childbearing and rearing is absolutely vital to women’s equality and we’re not there yet. In a way, I can see where you’re coming from: legal abortion is a lot easier than totally overhauling our whole social superstructure, which is what I think would need to be done to make pregnancy, childbirth, and being the mother of a neonate a tenable situation for a college student. I also happen to believe that we should be overhauling society in exactly that direction.
BUT – and this but is as big as the one that I’m currently sitting on – outlawing abortion in the society we live in right now is not going to move us any closer to overthrowing the patriarchy. It’s just going to cause pain and suffering and throw women into shit situations they don’t have the resources to deal with, derailing them from whatever their other plans were, and perpetuating a cycle of poverty onto a good proportion of the kids they have, so those kids are going to be too busy trying to survive to be overthrowing the patriarchy either.
Not to mention that most women do have at least one baby in our lives, and yet this hasn’t resulted in workplaces being particularly mom-friendly, so I’m not sure how forcing women to do their baby-having when they’re college students rather than later when they’ve decided it’s something they really want to do, is likely to bring about much in the way of social change.
Even if, one day, we manage to bring about a world where the necessary support to gestate, give birth, and parent, are present and taken for granted all across the world, abortion is still going to be necessary. It would most likely be less frequent (though how much we don’t know), because women would be able to choose what they really wanted based on the desires of their hearts instead of the present grim economic reality, and that would be a really, really good thing. But 100% effective anything is for science fiction, so there will still be birth control failures, and there will still be women who simply don’t want to give birth regardless of how much support is available (because it fucking hurts and it’s dangerous), or who can’t handle being pregnant, either physically or psychologically, and there will still be pregnancies where things go terribly wrong. And women will still be the owners of their own bodies.
LikeLike
June 25, 2009 at 8:50 pm
theobromophile
Well, I’m a woman and I’m pro-life. Monique is a pro-life woman. So is Beth. So are a lot of women I know.
Believe it or not, women are just as pro-life as men are. As they can get pregnant, they know what developing babies do to their bodies. They understand that what they carry inside of them is not a parasite, a germ, a “blob of cells,” or “pregnancy tissue”; they know that it is a baby. They see how different pregnancies affect their bodies.
Random question, Christine: if men could get pregnant, would you still think that “choice” is all about feminism? Would you still be pro-abortion?
LikeLike