Replies

I didn't think this was long enough.

Inroads

The author wants things both ways: We should respect the life of a fetus, but be allowed to snuff it out whenever we so wish.

Abhorrent.

Inherent in our focus on women’s rights has been our belief that fetal life does not attain, at any point in pregnancy, a value that is equivalent to that of born persons, most specifically women, infants or children who are most often cited in discussions of abortion.

Fetal life does not attain a value equivalent to that of born persons? Then logically:

Babies do not attain a value equivalent to that of young children.

Young children do not attain a value equivalent to that of teens.

Teens do not attain a values equivalent to that of adults.

Adults do not attain a value equivalent to that of seniors.

The further you are into the process of development from conception to death, the more valuable you are.

This truely is wolf in sheeps clothing.

Funny thing, I became pro-life for totally non religious reasons, based on pure science. The moral issue just made it easier. I still blame poor education for not teaching children more about science, or is it a fear, that if they do so, they'll get alot more pro-lifers?

First, and I would say primary, is our obligation to respect in law and social thought the right of women to bodily autonomy. Generally speaking, nobody should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term without their consent.

If people did not indulge in behaviour that resulted in pregnancies, this would be much less of an issue. No pregnancy, no abortion.

Oh, Lord, when will some bishop grow a pair and formally excommunicate Frances Kissling? She's an embarassment to all that is good.

Too often the legal arguments that win in a court of law are the very arguments that lose in the court of public opinion.

This is where I find the 'constitutional' arguments. "If it's legal, it must be right." That the issue is whether a fetus is a 'person' under the Constitution and therefore has rights. What puzzles me is the apparent obliviousness to the fact that laws are based on societal morality, not vice versa. Slavery was legal at one time. Mass murder (of adults) has been legal. By this logic both would be considered right.

Treating the fetus humanely during the termination of its life would be seen as an important human value—more important than the extra cost factor. One might even go so far as to seek prochoice legislation that would offer reimbursement for anesthesia costs, possible through CHIP (the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program)

What a very twisted mind this is.

I guess she thinks they are losing the battle so she wants to try to take back the pro-abortionists' status as moral agents. Doing whatever you want to do is morally right as long as you agonize over it first.

Should our approach to the bill be an immediate assumption that it must be defeated or a reflection on what is the right thing to do if there is a possibility that the fetus feels pain?

But...the fetus isn't a 'person'. It's just a mass of tissue. Who cares if it feels 'pain'. Do we care whether cockroaches feel pain? /sarc

The "pro choice" people need to stop this silly idea that the law can't tell you what to do with your body. They do it all the time. You can't put certain substances into it or use it to operate certain machines if you are under a particular age, you can't kill yourself, you can't put your body in areas they tell you you can't go, etc etc. But more reasonable than any of those things, they've decided you can't use your body to KILL SOMEONE. There goes the myth of "bodily autonomy." Of course, it already was a myth for pregnant women, since it isn't just their body anymore.

"It will also do everything it can to help women and men prevent pregnancies if they do not want to have children."

Sorry, but you can effectively leave men out of this discussion if their desires are contrary, whether or not to continue the pregnancy: to what the woman wants.

"Reproductive Rights" is one of those public issues where the inequality between the sexes is rarely discussed.

Reproductive rights does not exist as a legal concept for men, and men are regularly told that they have responsibilities and not rights. A man has no "reproductive rights" that a woman is bound to respect, whether in nor out of marriage, to keep the baby or not. The only right that men have is to keep their pants zipped up, as the course of their lives and their hope for posterity is entirely dependent on the woman's "choice".

I remember hearing a feminazi screeching about how vital "reproductive rights " were for all human beings, insofar as their ability to determine the course of their lives is concerned. It got me to wondering how it is that no comparable "reproductive right" exists for men other than the right to keep your trousers zipped up. A man's income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life. Under the law, he is utterly responsible to support any children with his DNA, and often even for those without it. In many states, women are allowed to ABANDON newborn children that they do not want at hospitals or firehouses, no questions asked. Men don't even have any "reproductive rights" in marriage, because his wife retains her "reproductive rights" if she "chooses" to exercise them.

I don't think either sex should have these "reproductive rights", and should deal with the concequences of a pregnancy, wanted or not. But if as the feminazi says, these rights are vital to human beings, than I wish to suggest the following remedies. An unmarried man, upon being promptly notified of an unwanted pregnacy by his mate, should have the option of a paternal veto (abortion) absolving him of financial and legal responsibility for the child. A married man who discovers that his wife has had an abortion against his wishes should recieve presumptive grounds for a divorce or annullment of the marriage, with the same holding true for one who concieves against his wishes.

Than again maybe the feminazi thinks that men shouldn't qualify for "reproductive rights" since she probably thinks men aren't human anyway.

The author does have one good point at the end. Why aren't pro-lifers doing more to prevent abortions? I know there is more being done than the author implies--there are charitable organizations to educate women and to take care of those who choose not to have abortions--but surely much more can be done than we are doing.